Leslie, Law Professor from the Benjamin Carload School of Law, wrote, “Consequently, the contents of attorney-client communications are extraordinarily relevant and reliable evidence.
If the point of litigation is to deduce the truth, why exclude attorney-client communications? Most evidentially rules further the search for truth. Hearsay is excluded as unreliable, character evidence as unduly prejudicial. The law of privileges is a stark exception because it conceals evidence that is highly reliable and probative.We tolerate attorney-client privilege because we suppose that without it, fear or ignorance would cause clients to omit, slant, or falsify information when consulting attorneys. Perhaps unwittingly, clients would refit the opportunity to obtain sound legal advice. The privilege, therefore, enables clients to function effectively in the legal system. The price is the exclusion of relevant and reliable evidence.
Only $13.90 / page
” In a fair trial, both the defendant and the accuser swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.This cannot occur if the defendant tells the attorney of the heinous crime, and the attorney covers up the tracks for his guilty client. This breaks the oath by not telling the whole truth under oath, and May possibly let a guilty man be let free even tough he is in all rights guilty. The reviled even excludes evidence that is related to but not necessarily a part of what is covered in by the privilege. As a democracy the U. S is formed around the idea of the social contract in which idea that citizens will give up certain rights, to a certain degree, in order for the government to protect the populace and effectively serve justice.The way the government upholds its end of the contract is through its laws, meaning that breaking the law will result in consequence.
If the laws are broken and there is no punishment then the laws don’t serve their purpose meaning the government can’t serve TTS purpose either. Attorney client privilege makes it harder for the guilty to be convicted and result in a larger number of incorrect verdicts. Therefore the law isn’t upheld, the guilty go free and the law process ineffective. More importantly, however, the innocent aren’t protected and therefore this undermines the purpose Of the social contract.As a democracy the U. S is formed around the idea of the social contract in which idea that citizens will give up certain rights, to a certain degree, in order for the government to protect the populace and effectively serve justice. The way the government upholds its end of the contract is through its laws, meaning that breaking the law will result in consequence.
Fifth laws are broken and there is no punishment then the laws don’t serve their purpose meaning the government can’t serve its purpose either.Attorney client privilege makes it harder for the guilty to be convicted and result in a larger number of incorrect verdicts. Therefore the law isn’t upheld, the guilty go free and the law proves ineffective. More importantly, however, the innocent aren’t protected and therefore this undermines the purpose of the social contract. With this essentially immoral, albeit perfectly legal arrangement, we have surrounded ourselves with lies, and locked ourselves up within a system that perpetuates further lies.Our jails are filled with people who are incarcerated for all the wrong reasons, a miasmas haze of generalized guilt– unspecified and totally disconnected from the actual events themselves. They sit in jail, and the story of what happened sits with them.
And no one seems to care, as long as jails have low vacancy rates. We have bargained away the sanctity of truth for the certainty of a jail sentence. Indeed, the official courthouse records of criminal suppositions are distorted, because they reflect false punishments. A rape IS reduced to an assault.Something that is felonious suddenly, magically, becomes merely mischievous. A first-degree offense is lessened to a crime with a lower degree of culpability, stripped down to something less ominous- and less true. We are all ultimately the unwitting victims off system that subordinates truths to its narrow vision of justice.
But constituencies all about discovering the truth? Moral and historical justice can’t be accomplished without knowing what happened. This is what people assume courthouses re for: truth telling, truth seeking, justice embodied in the very nature, and in all the delicate nuances, of truth itself.Some proponents of the privilege argue that abandoning the privilege will discourage people from seeking legal advice, but this is not empirically proven. Edward J. Malingered, Law Professor at U. Cal Davis, writes, “There have been a number of studies on the effect of the attorney-client and psychotherapist-patient privileges. It is certainly dangerous to extrapolate from the available data, because there have been only a few handfuls of studies.
However, the findings in the studies re relatively uniform.The researchers have fairly consistently found that: Even absent a privilege, only a small minority of laypersons would be deterred from consulting the professional; without a privilege, perhaps a significant minority of the laypersons would be somewhat more guarded in their communications, particularly written communications, with the confidant; but the vast majority of laypersons would still consult and communicate with their confidants to roughly the same extent. On reflection, these findings should not come as a surprise. As professor paschal pointed UT in the Senate hearings on the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, most laypersons communicating with confidants are engaged in primary, pre- litigation activities. Typically, at the time of the communication they have little or no concern about subsequent litigation. Moreover, they often have strong, even impelling, reasons to communicate. For example, if a patient is in intense pain or fears that he or she is dying, the patient is likely to disclose any information requested by the physician regardless of the existence veil non of a medical privilege in that jurisdiction.
And even if it were true that abandoning the privilege will discourage some from seeking legal advice, only those who are guilty would be discouraged from doing so. The innocent have nothing to hide. All societies are formed around the social contract. All social contract theories are based off of the idea that the people will give up certain rights, to an extent, in order for the government to protect the populace in some way.The mechanisms for a government to uphold its end of the social contract are its laws. However, for laws to mean anything, they must have authority, meaning that if someone breaks a law, they must be punished, otherwise it would be as if no laws existed at all. The mechanism is simple, but its implementation is difficult.
Modern jurisprudence, including attorney client privilege, makes it substantially more difficult for the guilty to be convicted, causing a net decrease in the number of correct verdicts.In these circumstances, the law is not upheld, and the guilty go free, undermining the authority of the law in the process, and, by extension, the social contract itself is undermined. Negative The primary argument in favor of retaining the attorney- client privilege is hat it facilitates effective representation, which is important to justice. The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to enable clients to make “full and frank” disclosures to their attorneys so that those attorneys can provide effective advice and candid representation.Without the privilege, people would not be able to use attorneys effectively because they would be deterred from sharing critical information with their attorneys out of fear that it could be used against them in trial. Ronald Goldberg, Attorney states protection Of attorney-client communications a modern form Of proof reductionism toward which courts are especially solicitous? Historical privilege has benefited from judicial deference and understanding. Court reported, “It is out of regard.
.. O the administration of justice, who cannot go on without he aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the Para the courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which the subject of all judicial proceedings. If the privilege did not exist at a one would be thrown upon his own legal resources. Deprived of all professional assistance, a man would not venture to consult ay skillful or would only dare to tell his counselor half his case. And without off representation, it would be difficult to achieve justice. One of the basic tenants of the U.
S. System is a strong defense without all the knolled: possible a defense attorney cannot give a defendant the best defense possible. The absence of Attorney-Client privileged would cause defend to actually not tell their attorney’s the truth resulting in the opposite e the intent of the Resolution. One could actually argue that Attorney CLC preventable is essential to truth seeking therefore they should have CE precedence. On one scenario, we have truth seeking, which does not serially bring justice at all and is incredibly difficult to discern.Our scenario is the attorney-client privilege, which allows the defendant to professional advice on what is the “right action”, and thereby just. This the defendant to more accurately decide what is just, and therefore, b the attorney client privilege brings a higher chance of justice, should etc precedence over truth seeking in the United States criminal justice sys How can a government be legitimate if it’s violating people’s basic hung rights to privacy, did we not found this country to preserve our basic h eight?Also why would a client tell his attorney anything if he knows HTH information would immediately be released, it doesn’t allow lawyers etc there job, and if they know the full and unedited truth it can help bring! A correct verdict rather than also letting people’s rights be infringed u’ Negative debaters can question the value Of truth seeking.
While that the privilege excludes evidence that is important for truth seeking important to note that this evidence would not exist in the first place v the privilege. It’s not as if the privilege is covering up evidence that wool tennis be known.