In the U.S. criminal justice system, should truth-seeking take precedence over attorney-client privilege?

  • Yes it should.

    In the United States of America criminal justice system, truth seeking should take precedence over attorney client privilege. Someone should not get off on murder or some other horrible crime just because they have the money to pay for a good lawyer. If you have done something bad, you should be punished.

  • In the U.S. criminal justice system, truth-seeking should take precedence over attorney-client privilege.

    In the U.S. criminal justice system, truth-seeking should take precedence over attorney-client privilege. However, this is not happening because they can make a profit from the court system is the attorney. I think they should seek the truth no matter what the cost is but then no one would hire an attorney if there was not the attorney-client privilege.

  • Yes, I believe the truth is more valuable than client privelige.

    Client privelige appears to exist solely to protect a client, regardless of their innocence or guilt. I feel that if a client is guilty, it should be required that the lawyer divulge that information. Rather than arguing for the client's guilt or innocence, the lawyer would instead argue for a lesser sentence based upon the information found.

  • No we must protect rights

    Lawyer client confidentiality is a key part of our legal system. It should be a right of all those charged with a crime to be able to confide in someone without a risk of being harmed by it. If we take away the privacy then the whole system will crumble.

  • Attorney-Client Privilege Important

    While I think that truth-seeking is one of the most important facets of the United States criminal justice system, I do not believe it should trump the laws regarding attorney-client privilege. Attorneys are suppose to help their client and if the client privilege is revoked then the attorneys would be in a situation of conflict.

  • Attorney - Client Privilege

    The US Justice system is not about finding out the truth at all, but about one half of the side accusing someone, and the other half vehemently defending themselves. An attorney could find out that his defendant did commit the crime, but he would still try to get him off the charges.

  • No, the privilege serves a function.

    No, in the U.S. criminal justice system, truth-seeking should not take precedent over attorney-client privilege, because the defendant needs to be able to speak with their lawyer about their defense. To not allow attorney-client privilege is to have no defense at all. People should be able to talk openly with their lawyer without giving the prosecution evidence.

  • You won't get much truth if everyone refuses to talk

    Attorney-client privilege is a cornerstone of our legal system and nothing should change that, ever. Making a lawyer a mandatory reporter of issues would make them an extension of the prosecutor's office, someone their client could not trust at all. This would have a chilling effect on criminal court cases, with defendants unable to properly communicate with the person representing them in court. If there's a case, then the prosecution needs to collect its evidence and make an argument for it, not have the defense do their dirty work.

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