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?
In British and Australian criminal trials, the defendant’s past facts are not referred to the jury, with a view to protecting the very human rights. Some lawyers, on the other hand, have been against this practice and claimed for a rational change in the law, stemming from the belief in the significant contribution of past records to the judges’ final decision. From my perspective, I do agree with the latter viewpoint for two main reasons which will be discussed thoroughly in this essay.
It is commonly assumed that the history of one person, including good behaviors or wrong – doings, reflects authentically their personality traits and mental status. Psychologically, they are believed to be motives for crimes. According to some research, several severe commitments, especially ruthless murders, drug or slavery trades, have been conducted by experienced culprits with past criminal records under professional illegal organizations. While admittedly this practice may hamper the human rights, provoking an intuitive judgement from the jury, it is not a groundless change in the law. In fact, the approach to the defendant’s past establishes a decisive basis of the case, which enables the jury to reach a more sensible decision.
Another reason is that the level of sentence is adjustably imposed, depending on the number of the offenders’ attempts and their attitude towards that conduction. For instance, some being first – time convicted are deemed to get the lowest level while others repeating excessively the same crime or different severe ones simultaneously will be sentenced to imprisonment or death. Moreover, the background of some offenders with one decent and benevolent aspect or some good doings in the past can help to reduce the measure of punishment since the court may partially be convinced in their positive edification as time passes.
In conclusion, it is inevitable that a comprehensive source of information about the defendant, including their past facts, will help the jury to make a rational, appropriate and flexible decision, with less errors and mistakes.
| 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 |
- Some people believe that it is more important to teach children the literature of their own country than other countries. Do you agree or disagree?
- 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 c 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...iscussed thoroughly in this essay. It is commonly assumed that the history ...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to reach a more sensible decision. Another reason is that the level of sent...
^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... positive edification as time passes. In conclusion, it is inevitable that a...
^^^^
Line 13, column 206, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun errors is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...appropriate and flexible decision, with less errors and mistakes.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, moreover, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1809.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 330.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48181818182 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14126538347 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 176.041082164 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60303030303 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 557.1 506.74238477 110% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 50.9043220169 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.75 106.682146367 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5 20.7667163134 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58333333333 7.06120827912 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
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: 0.253436356605 0.244688304435 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0823482917975 0.084324248473 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0421328669243 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142918140462 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0691366874595 0.056905535591 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 13.0946893788 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 50.2224549098 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.8 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.33 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.