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? Give reasons for your answer.
Commonwealth nations laws are known for unrevealed criminal records, even juries do not have rights to approach them. Some lawyers believe that the accessibility to the past of the accused is decisive for making final decision. I completely agree with the statement and shall put forth my arguments in the upcoming paragraphs.
Firstly, it is pivotal to allow the bench access to the criminal records, which help them have a thorough assessment about the potential in repeating illegal activities of the offenders. For instances, serial killers will become critical threats to society if the responsible authorities do not recognize substantially their criminal tendency. They cannot be treated as equal as other first-time culprits because the second time they break the law indicating intentionally actions. In the worst case, it turns out to be a habit while the juries have no evidence about it.
Secondly, the change in the practice promotes the severity of the punishment, therefore, reducing the proportion of guilty people. In other words, the unclean criminal record reminds people to rethink about their behavior carefully before they intend to break the law again. Because the more the crime they accused, the more stringent the punishment they committed.
Thirdly, the innocent people also get benefit when the historical of criminal are investigated. For example, if a girl are committed as unintentional killer for self-defense, the bench will base on her clean criminal record to make more lenient verdicts. The juries can read the subconscious mind of the accused to pronoun obviously, well-defined and conscious decisions.
In conclusion, it is evidence from the above argument that the jury must be made aware of the comprehensive past record of the convicted to make judgments without flaws.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-04 | Sái Đức Lộc | 73 | view |
| 2019-10-10 | Phuong Uyen | 89 | view |
| 2019-01-25 | drhamidmavli | 61 | view |
- The graph below shows the number of enquiries received by the Tourist Information Office in one city over a six month period in 2011 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant
- The graphs below show the types of music albums purchased by people in Britain according to sex and age.Write a report for a university lecturer describing the information shown below. 73
- 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 73
- Report for a university lecturer 11
- The internet has greatly increased our access to information. To what extent do you think this is a good thing? 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1537.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 285.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39298245614 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92117854425 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617543859649 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 506.74238477 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.0225255569 49.4020404114 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.785714286 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3571428571 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2857142857 7.06120827912 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.67935871743 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.9879759519 276% => 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: 0.261152555763 0.244688304435 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0784805236451 0.084324248473 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0525453851526 0.0667982634062 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128404483256 0.151304729494 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0383995568978 0.056905535591 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.