24. 24.
!

  

VK
?





: 24.

IELTS // Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendants past criminal record. This protects the person who is being accused of the crime. Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should ( )

Should we look in the past while we are judging someone orwe shouldconcentrate only on the specialcase? Itis a reallysensitive question in our society. Philosophy, jurisprudence, sociology, and other studiestryto solve this problembut itisquite hard because everyone has his/her point of view.

In my opinion, a jury have to noweverything about the criminal record of the accused. Firstly, the past might be connected with aggravating circumstances like recidivism, membership in a gang, etc.

Secondly, it goes without saying a person who had already been judged for something in the past at present did not make any conclusion in the present case that is why he is sitting in front of the court. Therefore, his punishment should beworsethan the previous one.

However, some people believe that knowledgeabout the defendantspast won't be fair enoughin a finalsentencebecause the jurywill be linking previous crimes with the present time. So the person who is sitting in the court will looklike a banditbefore the judgment. Also, he already was punished for hislastcrimes andeven hehas a dubiousbackground he is absolutely innocent before the judgment, so people must argue onlyabout the exactcase.

Despite my respect for this opinion, I cannot share it because I believe that the past means a lot, especially in court. A person whomadea crime twiceneedsto be punishedharderthan for thefirst time.

All in all, I agree with lawyers who suggest that this rule must be changed.

:
():

!
, Ctrl+Enter.
.

.

.