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.
Owing to jury inaccessibility to the past criminal record of the accused, there is an extra layer of protection for them, thus, a considerable number of lawyers advice that the jury in criminal cases ought to have accessibility to these data before giving a final decision. In my opinion, I completely disagree with the articulation as it might impact the decision-making of the judge.
One evident benefit to accessing a historical database is to have a lot of information about the accused. In order words, having all this information will help in knowing the person personally, understanding their character and attitude towards society. To give an example, it will aid in knowing if the person is a law-abiding citizen and is a one-time offender, or is a frequent offender. Another reason that having past data is advantageous is to consolidate all the crimes and figuring out the reasoning for the same.
Just as two sides of a coin, there are multiple demerits of accessing old information, which might lead lawyers to defame the defendant on the basis of past cases rather than focusing on the present case. As a result, they will question the accused character and behaviour for old cases and might try to influence the result on the current case. Thus, it might impact the mental image and decision-making of the jury, as they will be considering complete historical information rather than focusing on the present crime.
In conclusion, although few lawyers consider that inaccessibility to past records is leading to safe haven for criminals, I am in adamant support of the opinion that sharing the historical information of the defendant might influence the outcome of the case.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 133, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...he accussed. In order words, having all these information will help in knowing the person persona...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, thus, in conclusion, as a result, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1414.0 1615.20841683 88% => OK
No of words: 278.0 315.596192385 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08633093525 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92931230075 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 176.041082164 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525179856115 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 461.7 506.74238477 91% => 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: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => 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: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 55.0272659688 49.4020404114 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.4 106.682146367 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.8 20.7667163134 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.06120827912 78% => 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 : 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: 0.249299185167 0.244688304435 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0881226126186 0.084324248473 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0577177755348 0.0667982634062 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140631201772 0.151304729494 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030943209881 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => 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: 12.54 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 78.4519038076 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.