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 person who is being accused of the crime some lawyears have suggested that this practise should be changed an

According to the laws implemented in Britain and Australia, a judge in a lawsuit is not being exposed to the defendant's previous criminal database since this safeguards the accused's rights. For many lawyers, this obligation should be reformed and a jury needs to have access to this information before reaching a verdict. Personally, I agree with the lawyers' viewpoint and I will outline my reasons below.
Firstly, one of the most practical reasons for the demand for renewal about what information can a jury have access to is to guarantee the equity and preciseness of the final sentence. In Vietnam, relapse is an exacerbating factor in every trial. Accordingly, a defendant who had a criminal record is going to face a higher sentence compared to a first-time offender. This equity and preciseness only appear when the judge has enough understanding about the defendant's past criminal record.
Secondly, it is necessary for the laws to be changed because it prevents consecutive crimes from happening. If a have-been criminal knows about the excessive costs of relapsing, their criminal tendency might easily be restricted. Take Korea for example, a first-time murder could receive an average of 10-year prison, however, a murder who had a criminal record could face life imprisonment or even the death penalty. As a result, the rate of recriminality in Korea is far less than in the UK.
In conclusion, in a lawsuit, the judge should definitely be given access to the suspect's previous criminal database due to the fact that this renewal plays an essential role in practicing justice as well as deterring criminal relapse.