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 be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case.
Do you agree or disagree?
Certain laws are designed to be lenient towards first-time offenders and punitive for repeat offenders. In some countries such as British or Australia, the defendant’s past criminal record is not published in order to prevent bias against repeat offenders. However, this has been open to discussion that a jury should be given all the past facts before convicting. To avoid trumped-up charges, I am more convinced that the accused’s past record should be provided to the jury.
Previous history of the defendant; to some extent, can help in deciding accurate verdicts based on the severity of the perpetration. For example, repeat offenders or serial murders should be punished stringently. Because after rehabilitation, they intentionally reoffend and this is a threat as well as disturbance for society. As a matter of fact, some criminals are not regretful and impenitent with what they have done. On the other hand, there are many sad stories appearing in the newspaper everyday like children losing their parents, families losing the breadwinner. Is it their fault? Therefore, when the jury can decide the unanimous verdict, it is also the way to fair return to innocent people.
A first-time offender may commit crime without a choice. For instance, some people are kind but due to the financial problems, they resort to crime. In another situation, a girl may commit murder in order to protect herself from being raped. In other words,breaking the law as a last resort such as self-defense should not be compared with committing a crime intentionally. In those cases, the past record can be taken into consideration and the stainless history can save the defendants from life imprisonment or death sentence. Hence, this is beneficial for innocent people and helps the jury avoid miscarriages of justice.
In conclusion, with all evidence and arguments given above, the jury should be made aware of the comprehensive past records of the defendant to make judgements without misjudging.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-11-25 | NSMDeadshot0411 | 78 | view |
| 2022-10-12 | comTDK | 73 | view |
| 2021-11-01 | anna103 | 61 | view |
| 2021-11-01 | anna103 | 61 | view |
| 2021-07-16 | vuthuy2210 | 89 | view |
- Some people think that instead of preventing climate change we need to find a way to live with it To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- Computers are now the basis of the modern world They should therefore be introduced into classrooms and their programs used for direct teaching purposes However dependence on computers in teaching may carry a certain degree of risk to students Discuss bot 78
- 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 be changed 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 257, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , breaking
...herself from being raped. In other words,breaking the law as a last resort such as self-d...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 375, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... with committing a crime intentionally. In those cases, the past record can be tak...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, so, therefore, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a matter of fact, as well as, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.271875 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99496811074 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584375 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 522.9 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.1480604482 49.4020404114 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.7222222222 106.682146367 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7777777778 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0555555556 7.06120827912 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 3.9879759519 351% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.305232171777 0.244688304435 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830632729551 0.084324248473 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558817146647 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184264729 0.151304729494 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0670872338828 0.056905535591 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.0946893788 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.4159519038 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 78.4519038076 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.