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

Should we look in the past while we are judging someone or we should concentrate only on the special case? It is a really sensitive question in our society. Philosophy, jurisprudence, sociology, and other studies try to solve this problem but it is quite hard because everyone has his/her point of view. 

In my opinion, a jury have to now everything 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 be worse than the previous one. 

However, some people believe that knowledge about the defendant’s past won't be fair enough in a final sentence because the jury will be linking previous crimes with the present time. So the person who is sitting in the court will look like a bandit before the judgment. Also, he already was punished for his last crimes and even he has a dubious background he is absolutely innocent before the judgment, so people must argue only about the exact case. 

Despite my respect for this opinion, I cannot share it because I believe that the past means a lot, especially in court. A person who made a crime twice needs to be punished harder than for the first time.

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