Some experts recommended a revision to the regulation, allowing the jury to know the outlaws’ former lives for the benefit of better judgement. Judicial members are not permitted to view the past defendant wrongdoings under British and Australian law to protect the convicts. Personally, I concur with the viewpoint because a lack of knowledge could result in the condemnation of innocent people. Despite the negative side effects. This essay will clarify the situation and offer proof for its claims.
On the one hand, the past experiences of the guilty protect the innocent. To put it another way, it compiles pertinent prior records that aid the judge members in making better decisions. In Australia, 70% of defendants were imprisoned innocently due to lack of proof, and historical records could answer the problem. Thus, naive people were jailed, and the criminal justice system was unfair. The ruling power took the expert’s advice and acquitted the accused.
However, the defendant’s prior experiences bring back the deceptive past impression. In case of ambiguity in a panel’s conclusion, one’s past actions could be considered guilt. Recent studies from Oxford University showed that many innocent people were detained merely for having been in jail before. Thus, the innocent were imprisoned. Furthermore, it is the primary factor determining tenure in a large number of countries.
To sum up, despite certain potential negative effects of the proposed change, it should be permitted so that all convicts’ prior transgressions can be viewed in order to avoid any potential misconceptions. I still hold the same opinion, so I urge the local ruling authority to consider what these specialists have to say.