Amazon.com Widgets

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

Asked by: shteavey
  • Anything can happen if there are secrets.

    Def)
    Attorney-client privilege
    : A legal privilege that works to keep communications between an attorney and his or her client secret.
    Precedence
    : The condition of being considered more important than someone or something else

    Truth-seeking means to seek and look for the truth, and secrets, especially between the attorney and the client, doesn't help. Attorney-client privilege is respected for the clients, but nobody knows what the client is planning to do. If truth-seeking has the lower priority than the attorney-client privilege, the client can get away without anyone knowing the truth.

  • Yes, the truth should win out.

    We are being sold a bill of goods when someone we know almost for sure has committed a crime can tell his or her lawyer the truth but that does not need to be revealed. Truth telling needs to take precedence over attorney client privilege so that justice can be served.

  • Justice System Doesn't Work With Secrets

    I believe our justice system is broken and I believe one way that could be corrected is if the attorney-client privilege is broken. Attorneys should not feel the need to represent clients who confess their wrong-doings in private and then refuse to tell the truth under oath. Attorney-client pivilege has cost out justice system millions of dollars.

  • Truth seeking should take precedence over attorney-client privilege

    I believe that in order for us to rightfully uphold the law, truth should be perceived in light of events which will overpower and override any judgment that can be seen as equivalent to the privileges allowed to any attorney. Truth should be upheld as a law in itself it order to fully get the best rulings.

  • Truth-seeking should always take precedence.

    The purpose of the law is to instill order throughout society. It is the job of law enforcers to uphold to our laws, and when needed, dole out necessary punishment for infractions. However, more often than not, defendants will "get off easy" because of privilege, and I personally feel this is bad practice. This does nothing but substantiate the belief that money can buy you anything, when in fact we should be adhering to greater good within societal order.

  • This would break the legal system.

    That should never happen. Attorney-client privilege is required in order for a lawyer to effectively help his client during a criminal trial. There is nothing to be gained other than breaking the legal system and engendering distrust in it by removing this confidentiality Prosecutors can avail themselves of the usal tools in order to make their case.

  • No, attorney-client privilege has its merits.

    No, in the United States criminal justice system, truth seeking should not take precedence over attorney-client privilege, because attorney-client privilege serves a purpose. Attorneys cannot properly represent their clients if they cannot be open and honest with their clients. The privilege protects a person's right to counsel, which is critical to a fair justice system.

  • Attorney-Client Privilege Takes Precedence

    Unfortunately, attorney-client privilege takes precedence over truth-seeking in our criminal justice system. This fact shouldn't be changed or modified because our legal system was built upon such a principle. Sure, criminals get away with crimes on a regular basis, but attornies should not be required to divulge when their clients are lying. They're paid to protect their client after all.

  • Evidence Wins Cases, Not Attorney-Client Privilege

    If there isn't enough evidence in a criminal trial to convict someone, then that person should be found innocent. Attorney-client privilege must be preserved because that is one thing that guarantees a fair trial. Someone saying to their defense attorney "I killed that person" isn't admissable in court. Evidence should be used to get guilty verdicts as opposed to hearsay.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.