In the US Justice System, Truth-Seeking ought to take precedence over Attorney Client Privilege

I thank Con for the acceptance Before I begin, I will offer the following definitions and analyses. The Oxford Dictionary defines Criminal Justice as apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of criminal offenses. The role of the criminal justice system is to convict those found guilty. If the system isn't convicting guilty people, then the Criminal Justice System is no longer fulfilling its duties. First, The Criminal Justice is focused on society. The CJS was intended to protect society as whole rather than focus on individual rights. Focusing on individual rights takes the emphasis away from truth seeking and the protection of society in general. Secondly, Truth is beneficial for society. According to International center for transitional Justice 2013 "Establishing the truth about what happened and who is responsible for serious crimes helps communities to understand the causes of past abuse and end it. Without accurate knowledge of past violations, it is difficult for a society to prevent them from happening again. The truth can assist in the healing process after traumatic events; restore personal dignity, often after years of stigmatization; and safeguard against impunity and public denial. Establishing truth can initiate a process of reconciliation, as denial and silence can increase mistrust and social polarization. A political order based on transparency and accountability is more likely to enjoy the trust and confidence of residents and citizens." Establishing truth benefits society as a whole because it prevents violations from happening in the future, and restores dignity of the victims. Now that definitions on my part are out of the way I will move into my arguments I. Attorney Client Privilege hides the guilty and therefore harms the integrity of our system. According to Melanie B.R39;Leslie, Law Professor-Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, 2000,R39;"The Costs of Confidentiality and the Purpose of Privilege," 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 31, p. 31, (http://www.davis.k12.ut.us...) "The contents of attorney-client communications are extraordinarily relevant N11;and reliable evidence.R39;If the point of litigation is to deduce the truth, why exclude attorney-client communications? Most evidentiary rules further the search for truth. Hearsay is excluded as unreliable, character evidence as unduly prejudicial. The law of privilegesR39;is a stark exception because itR39;conceals evidence that is highly reliable and probative. R39;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 forfeit the opportunity to obtain sound legal advice.R39;The privilege, therefore, enables clients to function effectively in the legal system. The price is the exclusion of relevant and reliable evidence." What this is saying is that the point of the attorney is to do whatever it takes to make sure their client isn't prosecuted, no matter if they are innocent or not. This makes a mockery of our legal system because instead of allowing all legitimate evidence in we are possibly letting guilty people go, which is the exact opposite of the definition of our legal system. By removing ACP we are allowing sound evidence into court that will make sure every person gets their rightful due. II. Further, this system of truth seeking actually does work in our Justice system. According to Micheal L. Seigal in 2008 ( http://www.bc.edu... ) "Over the four-year period from 2002 to 2006, federal prosecutors brought charges against more then 200 chief executive officers, company presidents, and chief financial officers, and obtained over 1100 guilty pleas in white collar cases. These are staggering figures, particularly in light of the tremendous resources traditionally needed to investigate and prosecute complex fraud. DOJ's newfound success in this area, however, was not accidental." What this means is that by instigating a Truth Seeking system in fraud cases within America, we charged more guilty people than without it. If we were to implement this within the entire Justice System it's safe to assume we'd be convicting more guilty people. III. It will not convict innocent people. This is just pure logic, because if they are innocent it means they aren't confessing anything illegal therefore it doesn't harm innocent people, only convicts guilty people. IV. It does not violate our right to attorney as you still have an attorney. No where within the fifth amendment does it state you have right to attorney-client privilege, only that you have the right to an attorney's council which truth seeking does not prohibit. It only makes sure that all the facts that are out there are presented in court and therefore the defendant is given a fair trial. Our status quo system isn't convicting the right people and the only way to make sure that it does is by implementing a system of Truth Seeking. I look forward to hearing from Con. To you Con