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

This is for Lincoln Douglass debaters only!! Please don't accept if you're going to forfeit. Round 1: Affirmative Constructive, Negative Constructive Round 2: Affirmative Rebuttal, Negative Rebuttal Round 3: Affirmative Voting Issues, Negative Voting Issues Note: I realize that in a real Lincoln Douglass debate, the negative does not speak last, but since this is a written debate, the negative can present their voting issues and attack mine in the last speech. Truth-Seeking Precedence over Attorney-Client Privilege- Affirmative Side I agree with Elie Wiesel when he said, "There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." Therefore I affirm the resolution which states resolved: In the United States Criminal Justice System, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege. I offer the following definitions: United States Criminal Justice System- system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected of convicted of criminal offenses (Oxford) Truth-Seeking- Trying to get or achieve the real facts about something. (Webster) Ought- moral obligation (Webster) Precedence- the conditions of being more important than someone or something else and therefore coming or being dealt with first (Webster) Attorney-client Privilege- The attorney-client privilege secures the client from potential sensitive information being disclosed to other people. The law requires that the attorney does not reveal any communications or letters between him/her to his/her client or any third party. (The Law Dictionary) Utilitarianism- a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Webster) My value for this round will be justice which is important because the United States Criminal Justice System"s goal (as the name implies) should be justice. According to dictionary.com, "Justice is the process or result of using laws to fairly punish crimes or criminals." When truth-seeking takes precedence over attorney-client privilege, justice is achieved. This is because truth is the key to justice. Without the truth, a large amount of evidence goes missing; evidence that could be used to provide a more accurate verdict goes away and criminals are not fairly punished. My criterion for this round will be utilitarianism. This criterion is important because truth-seeking provides satisfaction to the majority of United States citizens. When truth-seeking is not put first in the justice system, a large amount of valuable evidence goes to waste; therefore various crimes and criminals cannot be fairly punished. On the other hand, with truth-seeking taking precedence over attorney- client privilege, the verdict is more accurate. The majority of United States citizens will be happy with just verdicts, thus achieving utilitarianism. This criterion achieves my value premise because when criminals are fairly punished, justice is achieved. Contention One: The goals of the United States Criminal Justice System (USCJS) are upheld when truth-seeking is put above attorney-client privilege. As shown in the Presidents Commission on Law and Enforcement, there are two goals: preventing and controlling crime, as well as protecting the innocent. Preventing and controlling crime becomes difficult when attorney-client privilege takes precedence over truth seeking. While a client may already be proven guilty, they could give there attorney information about not only their crimes, but other criminals they know of and have maybe even worked with. If the attorney has to keep this information in confidence, then crime certainly isn"t going to be prevented and controlled as it should. Truth-seeking keeps many criminals off the streets. Also, without seeking the truth, the innocent are not always protected. If an individual has not yet been convicted, attorney-client privilege hinders the criminal justice system because valuable evidence that could prove the right criminal guilty is kept in confidence. In C. Ronald Huff"s book, Convicted but Innocent, a study claims that over 10,000 innocent criminals are convicted each year in the United States. With truth-seeking taking precedence over attorney-client privilege, there is a greater chance that the verdict will be just. After all, you can only protect the innocent if the right person is convicted. Preventing and controlling crime, and protecting the innocent are goals that are upheld when truth-seeking takes precedence over attorney client privilege. When crime is prevented and controlled, and the innocent is protected, the criminal is fairly punished, thus achieving justice. Contention Two: The criminal is the only person negatively affected by truth-seeking. Some may claim that when truth-seeking takes precedence over attorney-client privilege, the client is being treated unfairly. This is not the case. Only the guilty will suffer when the truth is told. If the client is truly innocent, then what they tell their attorney does not need to be kept in confidence. Technically attorney-client privilege protects the guilty. Men who are innocent have no need to hide behind the law. If truth-seeking was held higher, many verdicts such as OJ Simpson"s would have been more accurate. Simpson"s ex-wife and her friend, Ron Goldman, were stabbed to death. Simpson was one of the main suspects. He hid behind attorney- client privilege, and came out as innocent. There was not enough evidence to prove him guilty, but if the communications between him and his attorney had been revealed, the verdict would be more precise, achieving justice. Utilitarianism would also have been achieved by providing satisfaction to citizens affected by the crime. Contention Three: Attorney-client privilege provides exceptions for truth-seeking. Because these exceptions exist, the courts already hold truth seeking higher than attorney-client privilege. According to The Law Dictionary, attorney-client privilege has exceptions that allow for truth-seeking. Death of the client, fiduciary duty (which is the obligation to act in the best interest of another party), and crime or fraud exception are some instances where truth-seeking must be held higher. This shows that the courts are holding truth-seeking higher, therefore preventing and controlling crime, protecting the innocent and achieving justice.