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.
There have been vast differences between how the courts across the globe have been giving justice when solving crimes in their areas of jurisdiction. In some countries, the panel of judges is not allowed to have any historical data regarding the accused. However, I strongly believe that to circumspect all possibilities of the crime, and solve the case faster, the information regarding any history of the accused must be shared with the justice panel.
This first argument in support of data availability connects in the light of finding common threads and patterns in the unjust act. For example, in the case of a murder, if there is historical evidence which finds a lot of common links between the past and current case, the chances of solving the case faster rise multifold. Notwithstanding the above salient reason, giving information about the history of accused also enables casting a wider net and getting more information to further support solving the case as soon as possible. For instance, in case of a drug mafia, if the panel giving justice has all information about the wrong doings of the accused in the past, they can gather further proof by summoning more related people to understand about the current case. This can speed up gatheirng of proofs and evidences to solve the case in lesser time. Not only is this point salient, but also in case the accused has no criminal record, it can help the judges to look at the case from a fresh perspective and identify the whether the accused is actually guilty in case anything seems fishy.
All in all, giving permission to the jury to look into the past record of the accused manifests serious controversy, but the supportive reasons mentioned above demand such action.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, look, regarding, so, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 24.0651302605 33% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1447.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 294.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92176870748 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60933130102 2.80592935109 93% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.544217687075 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 506.74238477 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 16.0721442886 62% => 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: 29.0 20.2975951904 143% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 50.5728187864 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.7 106.682146367 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.4 20.7667163134 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.7 7.06120827912 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.38176352705 68% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241546364967 0.244688304435 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0907710205842 0.084324248473 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0409951984984 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135754918261 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534563987831 0.056905535591 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 50.2224549098 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.85 12.4159519038 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 78.4519038076 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.1190380762 134% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.