Hi! This essay is complex for me, I want to know whether I managed to answer?
I think that my 3 para is weak(
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 answers.
Deeds in criminal case have achieved reputation as the most complicated ones. In Britain and Australia this case is even more impeded by the question of acquaintance of a jury by previous criminal actions of a defendant. Some lawyers suggested that jury should be informed of the previous cases. However, the accused person is defended from such kind of practice by the law of those countries. In my opinion, this question requires more careful consideration.
Initially, the practice of informing the jury of the criminal past of the accused prevents objective evaluation of the whole situation. Jury members could begin to think a bit stereotyped. For instance, if person was guilty of killing or maiming, the jury may consider that he or she is able to do this again. However, they may not take into account such facts that the defendant perpetrated this being in an affect or in order to defend himself. Hence, the verdict of the jury seems to be incorrect. However, previous crime records might help jury to identify the features of the person in the bar, and compare them with presented facts.
On the other hand, when the jury is not given the facts of past criminal record, they could not prefigure the whole responsibility of their decision. The accused may be recognized as guiltless. For example, high qualified lawyers are able to use loopholes in the laws to liberate their clients, even if defendant is guilty. Moreover, people who did many offenses in the past may look innocent. Therefore, the jury seems to be misled by the current position.
Given the evidence, the jury should only be given information of the accused person who was brought to trial many times. Therefore, this practice should be used according to the crime situation.
Shoinoyatov,
Thanks for posting this interesting essay. I think the reason that you're feeling that your third paragraph is weak is that you're trying to quickly argue both sides of the issue, while the question asks clearly whether you agree or disagree with one point of view. You should make a decision about which approach you can argue most strongly. The structure could be as follows:
Introduction (containing whether you agree or disagree that a jury should be given all past facts).
Arguments supporting your position.
Arguments against the opposite position.
Conclusion.
Cheers,
Phil
I think it is good if you included examples of more specific nature :)
It seems you have very good writing skills, but I think it is good if you polish your approach a bit more. I mean, your writing is very good, but you have all the potential to go for a real high band. Wish you good luck with IELTS :)
eddies [Contributor]
25 / 1,208 
476 It is always better to search your essay at the end for any elementary grammar errors :D
Have a look at this:
when the jury is not given the facts of past criminal record, they could not prefigure the whole responsibility of their decision.
they and
their indicate Faulty Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
if person was guilty of killing or maiming
The article is missing.
Person is an uncountable noun
jury
The article is missing.
Jury is an uncountable noun
according to
You'd better use
As Per (more formal)
Overall,
you write well, but you have to pay particular
attention to the basic grammar.
