LD Debate: Attorney-Client Privilege

I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution, "Resolved: In the Unites States' criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege." For a better understanding of the debate, I will be offering the following definitions. -Attorney-client privilege: At its most basic, the privilege ensures "that one who seeks advice or aid from a lawyer should be completely free of any fear that his secrets will be uncovered." http://www.sgrlaw.com... -Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... -Criminal justice system: The system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of criminal offenses. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... -Precedence: The condition of being considered more important than someone or something else. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... My value will be Justice. Justice will be defined as according to the Oxford Dictionary as "Just behavior or treatment." This is highly relevant especially as we're talking about the criminal justice system. The system ought to deal the most accurate justice possible. I will make this argument further later in my case. My value criterion will be understanding truth. Understanding truth is simply the state of knowing and comprehending what is factual. This specifically ties into justice, as justice cannot be given without an understanding of the facts. The highest degree of this will result in the best form of justice possible. Now I will support my case with the following contentions: truth is essential to justice, truth is always to be morally considered more important. Contention 1: Truth is essential to justice. To accurately serve justice, one must know the truth. It only makes sense. If justice were served merely by presumption or half truths, we wouldn't be able to ensure either the safety of our people or the punishment of the right people. "COLUMBUS, Ohio -- About 10,000 people in the United States may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year, a new study suggests." http://researchnews.osu.edu... Even if that number, in reality, is slightly more or slightly less, it is still a large enough number for this to be an issue. There is obviously no utopia in which a perfect system for justice exists. However, such a system ought to include absolute truth for trials, and although the system itself is impossible to create, it ought to be something for which we strive. When all facts can be considered, the most proper judgment can be made about a person. The more information known the more informed the system is to create the best outcome. These are highly rational statements. While there are sentiments regarding the attorney-client privilege, we need to examine the truth in order to make the best judgement for this decision as well, for no one would justifiably vote on a debate without first hearing (or reading) the arguments presented. Contention 2: truth is always to be considered morally more important. When it comes down to justice, as stated above, whole truth is essential for justice. Seeing as this is a prerequisite for justice, and United States law is not, in principle truth seeking should be most important. It's the most rational explanation when concerning a principle debate (as Lincoln Douglas is). The simple syllogism goes as follows: P: Truth-seeking is a prerequisite to justice P: Attorney-client privilege hinders truth-seeking C: Attorney-client privilege hinders justice. Seeing as the criminal justice system is what's under debate, justice ought to be upheld as most important. Thank you for your time.