Obviously, the attorney client privilege was designed to allow private discussion without repercussion. If the knowledge of the attorney can prevent a death or ruination of another's life, there should be exceptions. For example, if the client harbors intent to harm or kill another, or if the client's actions upon release would be detrimental to society, the privilege should be waived. If another person is serving time in prison for the crime of the client, I would say that constitutes an exception. Hey, who is the victim here? Why should the criminal's rights trump an innocent person?
Read any of the arguments FOR privilege and ask yourself if they actually answer the question at all. They use a lot of words to say nothing. Many of them say the judicial system is based upon trust. This trust should be in the courts to offer justice to the people. In all actuality, the arguments for privilege don't answer why trust is an issue between client and attorney. If a man states, "I am guilty," to an attorney, why should this be protected? Do you think an innocent man is likely to make the same statement to their attorney? No. Trust will not be an issue because a guilty suspects won't be able to make these same statements and innocent suspects will not have any reason not to trust their attorney. They know they are innocent and nothing they say to their attorney will refute that. Seriously, read all the for arguments and you will see they don't answer anything.
Attorney client privilege does not give people their due, because people are being given their due, the attorney client privilege is unjust. It can't be used in instances of national security, and it doesn't allow for a proper conviction in court, it gives unfair advantages to people in court and discriminates against the poor who don't have the chance to get a good lawyer. The court relies to much on the adverserial system, acp levels sides there.
It isn't fair to the victim! IF the suspect is actually guilty, then why should they be given to privilege to hide their information? The judge needs this reliable evidence to be able to call the guilty man guilty! We also want the victim to be safe! If you caught someone doing drugs and you told the police, and they put him in court, and he was in the end found him non-guilty because he got his attorney to hide reliable parts of the story. And then returned directly back home. Would you be afraid? What if this man is in gang related violence? You would expect them to kill you in your sleep, and it would haunt you every night thinking that you will be tortured to your death because some scum bag was smoking Marijuana
Technically, lying in court is illegal, and that includes hiding the truth, so the attorney client privilege should also be illegal. It only protects the guilty and is a risk to innocents by leaving dangerous criminals at large. That isn't worth client confidentiality. Safety and justice should be higher priorities.
Omission of the truth by an attorney is just as good as lying (immoral in all societies)
Attorney is helping a guilty party commit fraud by withholding necessary information
The information often gets out without the attorney’s help
There is no evidence that confidentiality is an important factor in encouraging people to seek legal advice. In fact, many accused persons seem willing to freely ‘confide’ in relatives and acquaintances, knowing that those third parties can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify against them. When defendants do not freely seek legal advice, the main reason by far is that they are too poor afford it. That is the true ‘access to justice’ problem in the legal system.
“The attorney client privilege exist so that a mans scared words may not be turned against him in the crucial moments known as court” It is because I agree with Stephen M. Forte, who is the Managing Partner and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Smith, a well known law firm, that I have taken the point of view that our law system also takes. Attorney-Client Privilege is sacred, and should not be meddled with by others. Because of this I am compelled to strongly agree with the topic that was posed today. A man who has murdered several people is being prosecuted by our justice system, and evidence cannot be compiled against him fast enough for a case against him. Yet we have learned that he has bragged about these crimes several times to his lawyer, who is bound by attorney client privilege, and cannot tell others, nor can the facts come to light. So the trial goes on and the man is not convicted and walks free, while we know he murdered them but can do nothing about it because he is shielded by a law whose sole purpose is to discount a drunkards speech. In affirming the topic, I offer you the following contentions. For my first contention I would like to bring up a point that may be used by the opposing side. When faced with the topic, people believing strongly in attorney client privilege will say that people will hold back information if they do not have their words secure. Now, if these people are the least bit aware of what they jury system is, It is illegal to withhold information, and may even be considered perjury. The attorney client privilege is only there so that the clients words may be twisted into a way that benefits him most, before appearing in front of a jury. To further confirm my point, I offer another contention. What is the Attorney Client Privilege? If a man is innocent, should he not have anything to hide, and nothing to fear? Men who are innocent tend not to hide behind the law, and take advantage of confidential perks of being accused of doing something criminal. As a final contention, I would like to bring to light how many criminals this could possibly take off of the streets. Without having to work around confidentiality, if a man admits he has killed someone to his attorney, then he can be arrested, accused, and sent to prison, where he is no longer an immediate threat to society. And to keep those around us safe should be the purpose of the laws put in place by our government whose sole job is to protect the people and their stability.
According to many of the opposing arguments, being rid of the attorney client privilege will make the client hold back the truth, and therefore not be properly represented- but if looked at through the point of the court system, finding truth of guilt or innocence is the goal of the jury. If a client holds back information pertaining to the case, he/she violates oath- if he/she tells crucial details in secret to an attorney then the truth is still unknown. The only difference to having the privilege is to create an advantage for the client to twist truth and details in order to make a biased case as convincing as possible. It must be rid of.
When the attorney takes on a case he has to take up the attorney/ justice privilege, so if that person has a man locked up somewhere in a hole that person is not legally obligated to tell anyone about him without being punished. So why should we not uphold morals before laws.
It would bring harm if the person keeps doing and the attorney has to live with it but many people will be kill and harm just because of this policy.It may take dangerous criminals off the street and may save thousands of live.Also, it may cause people to be more truthful and get punish for what they've done knowing it was wrong. :(
It has to be noted fiorstly that there are two interests which are clashing in this situation.On one hand there are the interests of the judiciary ,they need any form of evidence which tends to have a probative value,whreas on the other hand there is a need to protect the relationship of the lawyer and his or her client.Given the two situation ,what then remains is a choice predicated upon an evaluation of the above situation. Just imagine the chaos that will be in our society if the lawyers are al lowed to testify against their client. Surely I say if this is allowed what then follows is the burial of the legal profession because its is exclusively founded upon the the legal ethic of confidentiality.
If you abolish lawyer client privilege the lawyers of the court stem could be very greedy money makers. Even if a person is innocent the lawyer could blackmail and lie saying that he was guilty, which would force the innocent person to hand over a lot more money, even though he was innocent.
Attorney client priveledge exists to protect innocent people from being wrongly convicted. In an aff world you would see the number of wrongly convicted individuals increase. (no evidence, just logic.) just because a person is innocent doesn’t mean they are protected from prosecution. A major cause of wrong convictions is eye witness misidentification. People are wrongly convicted of crimes they didn’t commit all the time! Often times they have some serious evidence backing up that conviction. Evidence can prove a person to be innocent, but it can also make them seem very guilty. An attorney is the key communication between a client and prosecutor. Without full information an attorney cannot do their job in full.
Eye witness identification:
Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.
While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.
Unreliable or improper forensic studies:
Since the late 1980s, DNA analysis has helped identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent nationwide. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques — such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons — have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated — such as serology, commonly known as blood typing — are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results or engaged in other misconduct.
In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.
These cases show that confessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but are sometimes motivated by external influences.
If they argue the money = innocence standpoint, use “bad lawyering” instead.
The resources of the justice system are often stacked against poor defendants. Matters only become worse when a person is represented by an ineffective, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyer. The failure of overworked lawyers to investigate, call witnesses or prepare for trial has led to the conviction of innocent people. When a defense lawyer doesn't do his or her job, the defendant suffers. Shrinking funding and access to resources for public defenders and court-appointed attorneys is only making the problem worse.
Client attorney privilege is corner stone of the US justice system and if we were to remove it the justice system as a whole would collapse. Attorney client privilege has been around since the Roman Empire and should remain around for millions of more years. The main reason we shouldn’t remove client attorney privilege is trust. Without trust the justice system would cease to exist. The justice system is built around trust whether its trust for a jury to make the right decision to trusting the witness to tell the truth it is all built around truth.
The first and biggest way the justice system is built around trust is when the client tells his lawyer everything he knows whether it is illegal or not. When a client sits down with his lawyer to talk he is trusting that everything he says it protected. When an innocent person is arrested, such as Ryan Ferguson, they believe that even when the cops don’t find the truth, or even worse the wrong truth, they believe that the courts will stick up for them, but sadly that isn’t always the case. Ryan Ferguson was a man who was jailed for nearly a decade years when the prosecutors realized they had the wrong guy and chose not to re try him. That is the equivalent of saying, “oops sorry we just locked you up for 10 years of your life but you were innocent, my bad” and that’s not right. If client attorney privileges would have been gone he may have never have seen the light of day again. His lawyer chose to keep fighting during his entire sentence. In Fergusons case his friend Chuck Erickson killed a man and said that he and Ferguson did it, but Ferguson had nothing to do with that murder. If Erickson’s testimony had reached a judge an innocent man would have been sentenced to life in prison for something that he didn’t even do. If we abolished attorney client privilege every single person accused of a crime would be forced to defend themself. If we were to abolish attorney client privilege then what would keep us from recreating the Salem witchcraft trials. What would happen is we would question them without a defense then they would say that they didn’t do it, and then the justice system wouldn’t believe them, so they would go to jail. Taking away attorney client privileges would also take away the need for defense attorneys.
If the attorney-client privilege did not exist, no client would tell their attorney they committed a crime. Therefore, all benefits from eliminating attorney-client privilege would cease to exist. No guilty person would admit to a crime to their attorney if that privilege did not exist. In fact, the justice system would be more flawed if ACP is eliminated because attorney's would be less inclined to help guilty people and additional measures of justice (such as time in jail) would be skewed.
The attorney client privilege is a mandated right but it could sometimes get in the way of most rulings. In the case of OJ Simpson the attorney client privilege kept him out of jail even though he was guilty of killing those people. So it should not be abolished just remolded to fit the current society.
Attorney client privilege is important to the criminal justice system in the United States. This is because it will allow for the best defense of a client, be they guilty or not. Also, removing attorney client privilege strips away the trust between the attorney and client, which is needed to build the best defense.
I can do no better than quote from the judgement of the UK House of Lords (the predecessor to the present UK Supreme Court) in the case of [The Queen] v Derby Magistrates' Court ex p B  1 AC 487:
"a man must be able to consult his lawyer in confidence, since otherwise he might hold back half the truth. The client must be sure that what he tells his lawyer in confidence will never be revealed without his consent. Legal professional privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests."
There will be some dishonest lawyers who will advance a lying case when they know the truth but the majority of lawyers are not dishonest; they know they cannot call their client or others to give evidence which they know (rather than simply suspect) is false.
Unless, however the lawyer was present and saw the crime with his or her own eyes the only way a lawyer can know his client is guilty is if the client has admitted guilt to the lawyer. The lawyer is then able to tell the client he should plead guilty because he is guilty. Short of an admission of guilt the only time the lawyer can properly advise a guilty plea is when the evidence against the client is overwhelming.
Most experienced criminal lawyers will have represented someone against whom the evidence seemed overwhelming only to find, perhaps many years later that someone else was guilty and not the client.
The overall benefit to society of the client being free to be honest with his lawyer seriously outweighs the disadvantage that it protects some guilty people. After all, if you remove lawyer privilege criminals will just consult crooked lawyers in secret, get told what to admit to their regular lawyers and still get away with their crimes! In the meantime innocent people who have been wrongly targeted by the police (and even the most hones policeman may sometimes get a fixation) will be reticent with their lawyers because they are confused about what will make them look guilty and what will exculpate them so thus may not get the defense they deserve.
Apologies to women but I decided to use mostly the male gender for time saving, not prejudice reasons and since I am talking about criminals I didn't think it would be offensive if I didn't bracket women in with men.
Every person deserves to be represented effectively. If there were a chance your attorney could be forced to reveal your private conversations, you would be deterred from being open and honest. Failing to tell the truth to your advocate usually results in later embarrassment and faulty representation. This is especially true for criminal defendants.
Without trust, the attorney-client relationship would be meaningless. With no confidentiality, the attorney would seldom be given enough facts to work properly. Another form of representation would emerge. One that did not offer privacy for personal matters. For divorce, criminal cases, and just about any other matter, privacy is very important to most people.