The Instigator
Radix
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
chrimill
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

"Truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege."

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
chrimill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,191 times Debate No: 39674
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Radix

Pro

Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.
chrimill

Con

Attorney-client privilege helps the truth-seeking process, because it provides an assurance to clients to speak freely with their attorney. An attorney is also known as advocate, one who fights in your place because he can articulate better your position or defend you in a court of law. Therefore, your attorney must be able to know everything and anything about you to accurately advocate for you in a court of law.

Attorney client privilege allows a client to be more truthful with his attorney, because he knows that what he says will be kept confidential, even after he dies. Without attorney-client privilege, clients would be more hesitant to be truthful with their attornies, the attorney would have less truth available to accurately advocate for the defentdant, therefore your argument is self-defeating, since truth-seeking is enhanced by attorney-client privilege.

Furthermore, what is meant by "truth-seeking"? In this case, we have one term which is clearly defined, attorney-client privilege, and one which isn't. I assumed that by truth-seeking you meant it in the colloquial sense of determining what is true in reality, as opposed to what is legally true. Since we can't let this devolve into a metaphysical debate of "What is truth?" and "What does it mean to seek?", can we agree that truth is the physical reality of what actually happened and who is at fault for it?
Debate Round No. 1
Radix

Pro

Radix forfeited this round.
chrimill

Con

Truth-seeking alone would entail a legal process that would be more inquisitorial than the current process, which pits two interests against each other. Therefore, it appears that my opponent would prefer inquisition-style trials to the current ones that we have. If this is the case, then he should be prepared to accept this as part of his argument. Attorney-client privilege is vital in our current system, since our system is predicated upon two interests fighting hard for their side, with the truth functioning as the outcome of this process. Without attorney-client privilege, one side puts itself at a disadvantage, since they have no certainty of their private discussions being used in a manner that they do not approve of at a later time. Either accept attorney-client privilege as essential, or suggest another trial system for finding the truth which does not require attorney-client privilege to be a major part of it.
Debate Round No. 2
Radix

Pro

Radix forfeited this round.
chrimill

Con

I have offered numerous reasons why my opponent's position is fallacious and/or untenable, while my opponent has offered no supporting arguments for the Pro side; it is now up to the voters to decide a winner.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
RadixchrimillTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit, to which pro barely gave a sentence.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
RadixchrimillTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF