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 and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
As it is known about the British and Australian laws, jurors who adjudicate criminal cases do not have privileged information on an accused person's past criminal records. On account of this, some lawyers argue for a change in the procedure. However, I do not concur that the law should be amended because this can bias the jury and affect the credibility of the judicial system.
Letting a jury have facts about a crime suspect's past offences can make it have a jaundiced look against the accused. Jurors consist of human beings, therefore, they could be influenced by past transgressions that an offender may have committed. For instance, if a jury perceives an offender as having violated the law severally in retrospect, such a defendant is unlikely to get a reprieve from the jury because it can view him as a recidivist.
Another reason against this proposition is the need to preserve the sanctity of the judicial system. As said before, jurists who already have a bad impression about an accused are unlikely to deliver a fair judgment and this can make pronouncements from say a High Court to be adjudged unjust. For example, justice is depicted as a blind lady who is not influenced by sentiments. However, a jury that is compromised by the negative facts it already knows about an alleged criminal will not likely temper justice with mercy. So, whatever ruling that emanates from the court may not be trusted. As a consequence, faith can be lost in the court system.
In conclusion, though a number of lawyers feel that the law should be amended to permit a jury to get prior details about a suspect, I object to it because the court ruling may turn out to be wrong. Furthermore, it can undermine the judicial system.
| 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 |
- Planting trees is very important for the environment Some people say trees should be planted in vacant areas of cities and towns while others say housing facilities should be built instead Do you agree or disagree 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 61
- 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 73
- Some of the methods used in advertising are unethical and unacceptable in today s society To what extent do you agree with this view 84
- Companies should provide sports and social facilities for local communities To what extent do you agree 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1450.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 299.0 315.596192385 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84949832776 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7801716238 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 176.041082164 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.508361204013 0.561755894193 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 461.7 506.74238477 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.229425935 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.571428571 106.682146367 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57142857143 7.06120827912 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => 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: 0.372249231808 0.244688304435 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115775191397 0.084324248473 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0804872115969 0.0667982634062 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23755377971 0.151304729494 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.120617216115 0.056905535591 212% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 50.2224549098 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.4159519038 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.