Legend: Academic word (?) New word
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The graph below shows how money was spent on different forms of entertainment over a five-year period.
Write a report for a university lecturer describing the information shown below.
Write at least 150 words.
Read the question very carefully.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Present a written argument or case to an educated non-specialist audience on the following topic:
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.
Write at least 250 words.
The bar graph illustrates us the expenditure on various recreational facilities all over the world from 1995 to 2000. The significant change we can see between the USA and Asia in comparison with Europe.
It is obviously here that in 2000 was spent the greatest amount of money in all the regions. The USA expended over $250 billion, Europe more than $150 and finally the quantity for Asia was over $100. In 1995 in the USA it was spent over $150 billion, what absolutely differed to Europe, in which that spending was below $150 billion, and the lowest percentage was shown in Asia which total spending result was over $100 billion.
Furthermore, from this bar graph it is clearly seen that in all of the regions people spent more money on publishing and television. The sum of expenditure on cinema and music was approximately equal.
Thus, as far as the spending number was different in the USA, Europe and Asia, it is concerned that during the five-year period expenses on all the shown amusement activities were rapidly increased.
It is believed, and rightly so, that a person learns from his past and makes his future bright by correcting the mistakes committed in the past. Due to this, a person should not be judged, as a whole, by his past deeds only. Due the weightage must be accorded to the present circumstances in which the person commits an act, which may either give a positive or a negative result.
Different nations across the globe have a different set of rules in respect of criminal cases that come across the jury of such nation. The jury under the British and Australian laws has no access as regards the past criminal record of a defendant. This provides an edge to the defendant, as the jury comes to a decision in a vacuum. Moreover, in absence of previous criminal records the jury does not arrive at a decision due to any biasedness or pre-conceived notion about the character of the defendant. This situation, undoubtedly, favours the defendant.
However, another school of thought believes that the jury must be aware of the past criminal records of the defendant. According to the believers of this school, an access to the past criminal records, actually provides a factual, realistic and reasonable platform to the jury to deliver their judgment. The past records, as a matter of fact, provides the insight into nature, character, upbringing, social level, mental health and numerous other factors of the defendant. With the help of these tools, it becomes easy and logical for the jury to read the subconscious mind of such defendant. Moreover, it also facilitates the jury to take a reasoned, well defined, appropriate, conscious, deliberate, judicious and prudent decision.
As a matter of fact, in the recent case of a known gangster that made headlines in the criminal magazine, The ABC, it was only due to the knowledge of modus operandi of the said gangster in past records, that the jury overruled the theory of reasonable doubt that was illusioned by the advocate of the defendant.
In short, in my opinion, the jury must be made aware of the past records to provide them the opportunity to have a full 360-degree view of the defendant, as a whole.