Truth Seeking vs Attorney-Client Privilege: Both Sides of the Argument
I was recently involved in a Lincoln-Douglas debate in which the resolution was this: "Resolved: In the United States Criminal Justice System, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege." I argued for both sides of this argument, and I would like to share my arguments from the debate.
Affirmative Brief
Thomas Paine once wrote, “Truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.”
The resolution
that will be debated today follows: “Resolved: In the United States Criminal
Justice System, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client
privilege.” I will be arguing in favor of this resolution.
This resolution
will be interpreted as follows, if my opponent consents: the following
definitions can be found in the American Heritage Dictionary: the United States
Criminal Justice System is: the system of law enforcement, the bar, the
judiciary, corrections, and probation in the United States that is directly
involved in the apprehension, prosecution, defense, sentencing, incarceration,
and supervision of those suspected of or charged with criminal offenses.
Truth-seeking is: the act of trying to locate or discover conformity to fact or
actuality. Precedence is: priority claimed or received because of greater
importance. Considering this, we must realize that the phrase “take precedence
over” doesn't mean to put one side down and bring up the other, it only means
that one side is of greater importance than another, but both sides are still
important. Attorney-client privilege is defined in the Legal Dictionary as: in
the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent
any other person from disclosing, confidential communications between the
client and his or her attorney. As for the definition of justice, the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary says it best: the process or result of using laws to
fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals.
Now, truth
seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege for three main
reasons: first of all, truth-seeking leads to justice better than
attorney-client privilege does, and justice is the reason for the U.S. Criminal
Justice System. Also, truth is a liberty, or a freedom; a right. Finally,
truth-seeking leads to a safer society.
Let’s look at
justice first. If truth-seeking is valued above attorney-client privilege in
our criminal justice system, then the attorney’s testimony will be a lot more
unbiased, because attorney-client privilege restricts an attorney’s testimony
in court. Because of attorney-client privilege, an attorney is restricted to
testify of certain communications that he or she had with their witness. If
truth seeking took precedence, then the attorney’s less biased testimony would
be present. With this unbiased testimony, a lot more evidence and proof would
come out in the court, because of the inquiry of the attorney. Notice how
evidence and proof are both synonyms of truth. We ought to seek evidence and
proof in the courts. Obviously, if we can have this evidence and this proof,
then we can prove whether the accused is guilty and ought to be punished or the
accused is not guilty, and ought to go free. This is justice. Just like the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary says: justice is the process or result of using laws
to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals. If the evidence and proof that
is sought can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, then
justice is served. That is why truth-seeking ought to take precedence over
attorney-client privilege. Justice is the goal of the United States Criminal
Justice System.
Now, we must
also remember the importance of liberty in the United
States . Freedom is certainly valued highly
by the United States ,
and so the United States Criminal Justice System also ought to value liberty.
How, though, does truth-seeking lead to greater liberty? Well, think about it.
Once we can seek this evidence and proof in our courts, then another one of the
rights of the people is protected: the right to truth. In the United Nations’
updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights, adopted
in February of 2005, section two, principle two reads as follows: “every people
has the inalienable right to know the truth about past events concerning the
perpetration of heinous crimes and about the circumstances and reasons that
led, through massive or systematic violations, to the perpetration of those
crimes. Full and effective exercise of the right to the truth provides a vital
safeguard against the recurrence of violations.”[1] Protecting our unalienable
rights certainly leads to greater liberty, especially in the United
States , because the reason for government is
to protect the peoples’ unalienable rights, and that is what truth-seeking
does: it protects the peoples’ unalienable right to truth. In addition to
restricting the peoples’ inalienable right to truth, attorney-client privilege
also restricts the attorney’s constitutional right to free speech, because
attorney-client privilege restricts the attorney’s unbiased testimony. If truth
seeking was valued above attorney-client privilege, more liberty would certainly
be present in this country and its criminal justice system.
Finally, safety
is another value that is better satisfied when truth-seeking takes precedence
over attorney-client privilege. After my previous arguments, it should be more
evident why truth-seeking satisfies more safety in society. I’ve already shown
how truth-seeking leads to justice, and I've also shown how truth-seeking leads
to the guilty being punished for their crimes (since justice is the guilty being punished for their
crimes). Often, when the guilty are punished, they are put in prison, on
probation or put in some sort of state that restricts them. If these criminals
are restricted, then there is less crime in society, and therefore, the people
are safer. That is how truth-seeking leads to safety.
In conclusion,
truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege in the
United States Criminal Justice System because of three values: justice,
liberty, and safety. Once truth-seeking takes precedence, then these three
values will be better satisfied, and the United
States and its criminal justice system will
better serve their purposes.
I solicit my
vote to the judge.
Bibliography
1. The United Nations’ updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights, Feb. 2005. <http://derechos.org/nizkor/impu/principles.html>
1. The United Nations’ updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights, Feb. 2005. <http://derechos.org/nizkor/impu/principles.html>
Negative Brief
In this debate
of, “Resolved: In the United States Criminal Justice System, truth-seeking
ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege,” I will be arguing
against the resolution.
I acknowledge,
agree with, and appreciate the interpretation that my opponent has offered
concerning this resolution.
Truth-seeking
shouldn't take precedence over attorney-client privilege because if that were
the case, the client’s rights to attorney-client privilege and to be
represented by a council would be infringed upon. In the United
States courts today, attorney-client
privilege takes precedence, and that is how it should be. It works fine now,
and it always has. If the importance of attorney-client privilege was lost,
then a lot of liberty and fairness in the courts would be lost with it.
Attorney-client privilege and its importance have been stressed all throughout
the history of the United States ,
and it even goes back to the times of Cicero and Roman law. If something has
always worked in the past, it would be very illogical to alter or abolish that
thing. The United States Criminal Justice System has always valued
attorney-client privilege, and the case Swidler
v. Berlin illustrated this in 1998. Vincent W. Foster met with his
attorney, and his attorney took notes at the meeting. Days later, Foster
committed suicide, but the court still upheld attorney-client privilege, even
after the client’s death.[1] This is the importance of attorney-client privilege.
 |
Truth is important, but without attorney-client privilege,
there cannot be justice in the United States.
|
Also, if the
importance of attorney-client privilege is not upheld, then the adversarial
system (which is the legal system that the U.S. Criminal Justice System
follows) cannot be satisfied. Without attorney-client privilege, a client’s
attorney would be free to speak as he chooses, and therefore, the client
wouldn’t be fairly represented. In addition to this, the case would not be
attorney vs. attorney, but rather, attorney and attorney vs. client. This is
not a fair or just way to run a courtroom, therefore, less justice would be
present in the courtroom. The U.S. Constitution also guarantees a person the
right to a fair trial. Without attorney-client privilege, that right cannot be
upheld, because the adversarial system of the U.S. Criminal Justice System is the means for a free trial. The
United States Criminal Justice System has always worked, and it has always
upheld the importance of attorney-client privilege.
For these three
reasons, truth-seeking ought not to
take precedence over attorney-client privilege: less freedom would be present
for the client, less justice would be present in the courtroom, and it would be
a direct defiance to history if truth-seeking took precedence over
attorney-client privilege. It’s common sense. If something worked in the past,
then it will continue to work in the future. I solicit my vote to the judge.
Bibliography
1. Swidler & Berlin ET AL. v. United States, 1998 <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/399/>
2. Pritchard v. U.S. U.S.
3. Brewer v. Williams—430
U.S.
Truth Seeking vs Attorney-Client Privilege: Both Sides of the Argument
Reviewed by IJ Pack
on
6:53 PM
Rating:
Reviewed by IJ Pack
on
6:53 PM
Rating:
No comments