Hey you guys, please give me some comments

Question

Essay Question:

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.

Start Here:

Not all countries in the world have the laws that restrict a jury from accessing the information of past criminal records of defendants like British and Australia. These laws can protect defendants from prejudiced decisions but can bring difficulties to juries as well. This essay will present why this fact should be changed to support jury’ decisions or kept as original to protect defendants.

Laws restricting a jury from accessing defendant’ past criminal records should not be changed. A major reason is that the information retrieved from past criminal records may be useful to help juries to reach their decisions. For example, juries can rely on such information to consider or speculate, and with certain collected evidences, they can reach final decisions reasonably. As a result, accessing past criminal records of defendants should not be restricted.

On the other hand, allowing a jury freely access to defendants’ past criminal records may be not a good approach. Not surprisingly that it may be unfair to defendants as some juries may not give unprejudiced decisions after considering such information. Consequently, allowing a jury to access defendants’ past criminal records should be restricted.

In conclusion, the laws prohibiting a jury from accessing defendants’ past criminal records sometime are reasonable but sometime not. Therefore, the laws should be flexibility made so that they can support a jury in reaching final decisions as well as assure fairness to defendants. In my opinion, if accessing defendants’ past criminal records becomes necessary, then the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice.

Nona the brit · Accepted Answer

Paragraph 2 is a little muddled. You start by stating the law restricting access should not be changed but then give reason on why it should be changed.

Your final paragraph needs a few corrections too.

sometimes not sometime and the sentence needs a little work on word order. Flexible not flexibility.

Meo_scorpio · Answer

Thanks for your comments, here is my correction:

Not all countries in the world have the laws that restrict a jury from accessing the information of past criminal records of defendants like British and Australia. These laws can protect defendants from prejudiced decisions but can bring difficulties to juries as well. This essay will present why this fact should be changed to support jury’ decisions or kept as original to protect defendants.

Laws restricting a jury from accessing defendant’ past criminal records should be changed. A major reason is that the information retrieved from past criminal records may be useful to help juries to reach their decisions. For example, juries can rely on such information to consider or speculate, and with certain collected evidences, they can reach final decisions reasonably. As a result, accessing past criminal records of defendants should not be restricted.

On the other hand, allowing a jury freely access to defendants’ past criminal records may be not a good approach. Not surprisingly that it may be unfair to defendants as some juries may not give unprejudiced decisions after considering such information. Consequently, allowing a jury to access defendants’ past criminal records should be restricted.

In conclusion, the laws prohibiting a jury from accessing defendants’ past criminal records sometime are reasonable but sometime not. Therefore, the laws should be flexibly made so that they can support a jury in reaching final decisions as well as assure fairness to defendants. In my opinion, if accessing defendants’ past criminal records becomes necessary, then the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice.

Meo_scorpio · Answer

Hey moderator, could you please help me to delete first two posts of this essay, keep the last one only, thanks a lot.

Meo_scorpio · Answer

Thanks for your comments, here is my correction:

Not all countries in the world have the laws that restrict a jury from accessing the information of past criminal records of defendants like British and Australia. These laws can protect defendants from prejudiced decisions but can bring difficulties to juries as well. This essay will present why this fact should be changed to support jury’ decisions or kept as original to protect defendants.

Laws restricting a jury from accessing defendant’ past criminal records should be changed. A major reason is that the information retrieved from past criminal records may be useful to help juries to reach their decisions. For example, juries can rely on such information to consider or speculate, and with certain collected evidences, they can reach final decisions reasonably. As a result, accessing past criminal records of defendants should not be restricted.

On the other hand, allowing a jury freely access to defendants’ past criminal records may be not a good approach. Not surprisingly that it may be unfair to defendants as some juries may not give unprejudiced decisions after considering such information. Consequently, allowing a jury to access defendants’ past criminal records should be restricted.

In conclusion, the laws prohibiting a jury from accessing defendants’ past criminal records sometimes are reasonable but sometime not. Therefore, the laws should be flexibly made so that they can support a jury in reaching final decisions as well as assure fairness to defendants. In my opinion, if accessing defendants’ past criminal records becomes necessary, then the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice.

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello MS

That's an interesting piece.

The first sentence is not quite right:

'Not all countries in the world have the laws that restrict a jury from accessing the information of past criminal records of defendants like ?British and Australia.'

This implies that B. and A. are the defendants. Try rephrasing with the construction [have laws that restrict...as B/A do].

'Information' isn't quite right. Try finding another word. Also, 'past criminal records' has one superfluous word!

'why this fact should be changed' isn't idiomatic. Is 'fact' definitely the word you want?

'as original' – instead of 'as original', you could try 'as it is'.

The reasons you give at the end of para 1 aren't quite accurate. Did you want to try again?

I only have time to look at the first para for now, but will return to para 2 next time I'm here.

MrP

Meo_scorpio · Answer

Hello MrPedantic,

Thanks a lot

. I really appreciate your comments and happy

to get more.

Here is my correction after considering your advices:

Have laws that restrict a jury from accessing criminal records of defendants, as Britain and Australia do, would be different in other countries. These laws can protect defendants from prejudiced decisions but can bring difficulties to juries as well. This essay will present why this approach should be changed to support jury’ decisions or kept as it was to protect defendants.

Laws restricting a jury from accessing defendant’ criminal records should be changed. A major reason is that the defendants’ history retrieved from criminal records may be useful to help juries to reach their decisions. For example, juries can rely on such data to consider or speculate, and with certain collected evidences, they can reach final decisions reasonably. As a result, accessing criminal records of defendants should not be restricted.

On the other hand, allowing a jury freely access to defendants’ criminal records may be not a good strategy. Not surprisingly that it may be unfair to defendants as some juries may not give unprejudiced decisions after considering such source. Consequently, allowing a jury to access defendants’ criminal records should be restricted.

In conclusion, the laws prohibiting a jury from accessing defendants’ criminal records sometimes are reasonable but sometimes not. Therefore, the laws should be flexibly made so that they can support a jury in reaching final decisions as well as assure fairness to defendants. In my opinion, if accessing defendants’ criminal records becomes necessary, then the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice.

MrPedantic · Answer

Oops! Sorry, I meant:

'Not all countries in the world have the laws that restrict a jury from accessing the details of criminal records of defendants that British and Australia do.'

Try:

'These laws can protect defendants from prejudiced decisions but can cause difficulties for juries as well. This essay will present the case for changing the law to aid juries in their decisions on the one hand, and keeping it as it is to protect defendants on the other.'

'with certain collected evidences'] not sure what this means.

'past criminal records'] delete 'past'; a record is always past.

allowing a jury freely access ] check this!

Not surprisingly that] ?that

give unprejudiced decisions] give decisions?

source] just one?

Consequently, allowing a jury to access defendants’ criminal records should be restricted] should 'allowing' be restricted? or 'access'?

in reaching] 'in'?

as assure] verb form?

the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice] do you need to say more about 'group of juries'? You haven't mentioned it before.

Short essay – we like that.

MrP

Meo_scorpio · Answer

Hello MrPedantic,

Thanks so much. Your enthusiastic comments on my essay will be much help for my coming test in next month. Therefore, please let my show you how I correct my mistakes. I don’t want just copy your solutions without knowing the reasons.

'with certain collected evidences'] not sure what this means.
--> for this phrase, I generally mentioned current evidences (not records) which juries may or may not find out while considering defendants’ crimes. Of course, these evidences do not always exist. So I think I should better put “maybe” before this phrase.
-->--> “…and maybe, with certain collected evidences”

'past criminal records'] delete 'past'; a record is always past.
--> Done.

allowing a jury freely access ] check this!
-->I think my mistake was “singlar/plural”.
-->--> “allowing a jury freely accesses”

Not surprisingly that] ?that
--> I confused using “that” to introduce noun clauses. So “that” should be omitted.
-->--> “Not surprisingly it may be unfair to defendants…”

give unprejudiced decisions] give decisions?
--> One of my silly mistakes.
-->--> “make unprejudiced decisions”

source] just one?
-->:( Why can I keep making such mistakes?
-->--> “sources”

allowing a jury to access defendants’ criminal records should be restricted] should 'allowing' be restricted? or 'access'?
--> I think here is where “that” should be used.
-->--> “Consequently, that a jury to access defendants’ criminal records should be restricted”

in reaching] 'in'?
--> is it collocation mistake? I am not sure too.
-->--> “for reaching”

as assure] verb form?
--> Another silly mistakes.
-->--> as well as assuring

the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice] do you need to say more about 'group of juries'? You haven't mentioned it before.
--> I am sorry as I cannot myself correct this mistake. Do I really need to say more about “a group of juries”? As I think a decision, if jointly made would be more appropriate than sololy done. So I think I said “group” here just to distinguish between one and many. I really do not know what I should say more about group of juries. Please tell me more, I need your comments.

-->
-->--> My corrected essay:
-->

Have laws that restrict a jury from accessing criminal records of defendants, as Britain and Australia do, would be different in other countries. These laws can protect defendants from prejudiced decisions but can bring difficulties to juries as well. This essay will present why this approach should be changed to support juries’ decisions or kept as it was to protect defendants.

Laws restricting a jury from accessing defendants’ criminal records should be changed. A major reason is that the defendants’ history retrieved from criminal records may be useful to help juries to reach their decisions. For example, juries can rely on such data to consider or speculate, and maybe, with certain collected evidences, they can reach final decisions reasonably. As a result, accessing criminal records of defendants should not be restricted.

On the other hand, allowing a jury freely access to defendants’ criminal records may be not a good strategy. Not surprisingly it may be unfair to defendants as some juries may not make unprejudiced decisions after considering such sources. Consequently, that a jury to access defendants’ criminal records should be restricted.

In conclusion, the laws prohibiting a jury from accessing defendants’ criminal records sometimes are reasonable but sometimes not. Therefore, the laws should be flexibly made so that they can support a jury for reaching final decisions as well as assuring fairness to defendants. In my opinion, if accessing defendants’ criminal records becomes necessary, then the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice.

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello MS

Nearly there – just a few things:

I would start like this:

'Not all countries in the world have the laws that restrict a jury from accessing the details of criminal records of defendants that British and Australia do.'

kept as it was to protect defendants. ] kept as it is

may be useful to help ] in helping

with certain collected evidences] I still don't quite understand this phrase. Does it mean 'with the accumulated evidence before them'?

accessing criminal records] access to criminal records

freely access to ] free access to

may be not a good strategy] word order?

Not surprisingly ] this doesn't seem quite the right phrase. 'Obviously it could be'?

that a jury to access ] a jury's access to

for reaching final decisions ] in reaching

The 'group of juries' appears slightly unexpectedly, as the idea hasn't been mentioned before. Perhaps add 'perhaps':

'In my opinion, if accessing defendants’ criminal records becomes necessary, then perhaps the final decisions should be jointly made by a group of juries to avoid prejudice.

But it's looking good.

MrP

Hey you guys, please give me some comments

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions