Writing task 2

I have good news I eventually have my offer from King's college ,I am so happy,I still have to do IELTS test as they want score 7 and at least 6 in every sector ,I am still waiting for my passport it is now for ages at the home office,I hope they will send it soon.
Anyway I did today writing task 2, the question is quite surprising because I did not expect that I might be asked to write about juries because it is a system that is not applied everywhere .
this is the 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 protect 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.

This was the question and here is my humble answer:
In my opinion the juries should have access to the previous history of any criminal behaviour of the defendant only if it has a direct link to the current situation. In other words, some information might be useful and helpful for them to decide whether the accused person is guilty or not. For instance in some cases like that with psychological prospective or the rape crimes, knowledge about the suspect’s criminal records might give clue for the case.

On the other hand, I disagree that unnecessary information about the defendant should be given to the juries because it might have negative influence over their judgment .This sometimes may lead to social prejudice which might be dangerous and unfair for the defendant. We should always remember that the accused person is innocent till the opposite is approved and that doubt is always on his behalf.

In conclusion every crime has it is own scene and should be treated according to the situation and that the law guards should bear in mind every detail about the victim and the suspect, so if they see that the juries should know about certain information and that this is inevitable in order to have the right decision they should inform them. On the other hand if they see that this information might cause even 1% of misjudgement which may lead to imprison an innocent person without any fault, they should not do that .In other words the law should be flexible and that what is so called the spirit of law.