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. For this reason, 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.
A jury with fore knowledge of a suspect's criminal records can be biased. Jurors consist of human beings, therefore, they could be influenced by past transgressions that an offender may have committed. For instance, there was a newspaper report in the United States about a jury that did not waste time in sentencing a burglar because he was seen as a recidivist. In other words, a jury that is jaundiced against a defendant because of his or her past crimes is unlikely to temper justice with mercy.
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. That is to say, rulings that emanate 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 and an innocent person may suffer for it. The tragic consequence is an undermined 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 |
- Companies should provide sports and social facilities for local communities To what extent do you agree 73
- 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
- Companies should provide sports and social facilities for local communities To what extent do you agree 67
- 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
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 31, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a suspect' or simply 'suspects'?
Suggestion: a suspect; suspects
...stem. A jury with fore knowledge of a suspects criminal records can be biased. Jurors ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, may, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in other words, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1530.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78125 5.12529762239 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70785172 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5125 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 486.9 506.74238477 96% => 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: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
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: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9647262074 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.0 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3333333333 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73333333333 7.06120827912 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.9879759519 251% => 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: 0.370504079668 0.244688304435 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111516003421 0.084324248473 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0805465113969 0.0667982634062 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234638168119 0.151304729494 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113304834432 0.056905535591 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.0946893788 89% => 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: 10.44 12.4159519038 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 78.4519038076 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => 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.