In the USCJS, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.

Since Pro has used this round to make arguments, I shall also be using it partially for that purpose. This will ensure we both have equal character space to lay out our arguments. I'll keep my arguments around the 4,750 Pro used. I will then provide voting issues for this debate.GENERAL COMMENTThe Supreme Court has laid out explicitly what ACP does not cover. They have defined ACP through case law as NOT covering 4 key points that I mentioned. Therefore, this definition more accurately reflects case law: "the client's right, within the boundaries of existing law and jurisprudence, to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney." Simply put, ACP, what it is and what is not, is defined by case law. These exceptions are what it is not. Pro's BOP is therefore to show that additional exceptions other than those found in current case law should occur. Keep in mind the following: under the existing ACP laws, I could walk into my attorney's office and confess to 100 murders, and he would have to keep that confidential. Most of Pro's offense comes from forcing attorneys to reveal that information, so Pro is already advocating for changes to the status quo.PRO's CASEOV: EvidencePro fundamentally misunderstands my point. She discussions exceptions to ACP, but those exceptions are extremely limited. If I could not walk into my attorneys office and confess to a crime in confidence, then I would not confess at all. Never does she address this logic in my cards. She basically DROPS everything. Even under the current exceptions, I don't walk into my attorney's office and tell him I'm about to commit a tort because I know it's not privileged. Therefore, the exception to the privilege and truth-seeking in general don't increase the amount of evidence available. If ACP was trumped by truth-seeking, I just wouldn't tell my attorney anything, so Pro does not actually increase the amount of truth discovered. This takes out all of her utility offense, because without more truth, she cannot access any of her offense. VALUE Pro basically agrees to my definition. Moreover, this debate isn't about the USCJS alone, it is about what the government (prosecution's) role is in it. We have to look to how far government should be able to go, which brings us back to my value. Regardless, I will show how I achieve both values. Pro erroneously claims that as long as ACP isn't abolished, the constitution is upheld. This is false. If ACP is unduly infringed by a policy, that policy is unconstitutional, even if it doesn't totally abolish ACP. Next, Pro brings up the exception argument, which I already addressed. Keep in mind, Pro argued that if people confess to crimes, that information should be turned over to the police. That alone is sufficient grounds to show how truth-seeking inhibits full and frank communication. By denying people full and frank communication you deny them fairness. By denying them fairness you deny them justice. Thus, Pro fails to achieve her own value. I achieve justice better, on the other hand, by allowing for more instances of full and frank communication than does Pro.CRITERIONAgain, Pro misunderstands what I wrote. I agree, putting a worse criminal behind bars is utilitarian. But, if we let a pedophile go free in order to that, we are not applying the laws equally and fairly. Therefore, utility doesn't link to justice, because it inherently overlooks concerns of fairness when fairness is a hindrance to getting the best results. Essentially, my example delinks her criterion from her value. Next, she says that the USCJS would not completely forgive the pedophile: (1) this has no relevance to the underlying point, that utility is willing to act unjustly in order to maximize pleasure, and (2) that society does let a lot of criminals go free in exchange for testimony. This happens all the time in our overburdened CJS.Her cross-application doesn't apply. She's cross-applying an argument about how exceptions don't cause attorney's to turn their clients in (which they do, unless the attorney want's to face jail time) to an argument about how confidentiality promotes accuracy of results. She's cross applying a rebuttal that doesn't apply to my argument. We can basically extend my argument at this point. Pro then says: "There are instances when the attorney and client can engage in such communication under the privilege though truth-seeking is taking precedence." According to her, as she noted earlier in this debate, whenever a criminal confesses to a crime they should be turned in. So sure, ACP might exist, but it would only exist in name, not in fact. I would have to think about every word that came out of my mouth, I would have to hide facts and conceal information for fear that my own defense attorney would turn me in. That is NOT full and frank in any sense of those words. Extend my argument.Frankly, the guilt or innocence of OJ is still up for debate. What Pro fails to do is actually address my warrant, that an attorney can stop a client committing improprieties. If I told him I wanted to do something illegal to hide evidence, he could advise against that, thus promoting fairness in the system.C1: Cross-apply earlier points here.C2: Insofar as Pro admits that an innocent person could be defamed by prioritizing truth-seeking, Pro admits that her C2 is invalid and that innocent people can be harmed.C3: Already addressed at length...VOTING ISSUESI will divide voting issues into those coming from my case and those coming from Pro's. Let's start with my own.NC - Keep in mind Pro drops all of my defensive arguments on my NC. Instead, she prefers to have lengthy voting issues. Please extend all of my NC arguments.1. RIGHTS AS TRUMPS If I have a strong right to X, this right trumps utilitarian concerns. So, even if you accept that Pro is producing the most benefit, as long as you accept that ACP is a strong right, you can disregard all of Pro's impacts and must vote Con.Furthermore, my observation, which was conceded, implies that strong rights take precedence over other concerns, echoing this logic. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS STRONG Pro conceded this round 2 by failing to address the warrant I provided. So, as long as ACP is a constitutional right, we must buy that it is a strong right. 3. ACP PROTECTED BY THE 5TH AMENDMENT According to the California Law Review, “denial of the attorney-client privilege is compulsion [to self-incriminate] because it penalizes the client's right of effective counsel if he wishes to avoid self-incrimination. Without the attorney-client privilege, an attorney could routinely be subpoenaed to produce his communications with his client. The only way the client could prevent self-incriminating statements from reaching the prosecution would be for him to limit his communications with his attorney. If this occurs, the attorney may not receive all the facts necessary for an adequate defense.”Pro attempts to mitigate this in the final round, saying that truth-seeking does not force self-incrimination. In fact, what it does is force the client to choose between self-incrimination and full and frank communication. Pro seems to agree that full and frank communication is important when she tries to coopt this offense for her world. So, if we buy that full and frank communication is essential to justice and that clients should engage in full and frank communication, then we are, from a de facto perspective, forcing self-incrimination. 4. ACP PROTECTED BY THE 6TH AMENDMENT California Law Review 2: “If a state denied a criminal defendant the attorney-client privilege, the client's sixth amendment rights would be violated because he would be deprived of an active, partisan advocate...Active, partisan advocacy, however, is impossible when a defense attorney is expected to give evidence to the prosecution while he is supposed to defend his client." At no point in this debate has Pro ever rebutted this. In fact, in her last speech, she agreed that attorney's should be subpoenaed if they could provide probative evidence. She agrees, in other words, that we should violated the constitution. CONCLUSION 1: As long as you buy either 3 or 4, then you buy that ACP is a strong right. Strong rights take precedence over other concerns, like truth-seeking. At this point, I have won the debate, but in case you don't buy that, let's look at Pro's case to see the offense I'm garnering off of that.AC - I will show some issues with Pro's case at this time.1. NO EXTRA TRUTH Pro's world would result in no more truth than Con's world. The reason is simple: because if I know my attorney could testify against me, I won't tell him anything. So, what would've be kept secret by virtue of privilege is now kept secret by virtue of the fact I just never tell anyone. So, Pro can't link into her own framework of utility better than me, because she is not discovering any more truth or any more evidence than I am. This takes out all of her offense. 2. PRO CAN'T ACHIEVE JUSTICE, I CAN If attorney's can be subpoenaed, full and frank communication disappears. By denying people full and frank communication you deny them fairness. By denying them fairness you deny them justice. Thus, Pro fails to achieve her own value. I achieve justice better, on the other hand, by allowing for more instances of full and frank communication than does Pro. 3. PRO CAN'T ACHIEVE UTILITY There are a number of reasons for this: truth-seeking can harms innocents, she's not actually increasing the amount of truth discovered, and she is violating rights (which seems harmful.) 4. UTILITY CONFLICTS WITH JUSTICE Utility is about results. Justice is about fairness. When fairness gets in the way of results, the utilitarian says "ignore fairness." For these reasons, please VOTE CON! Thank you!