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

This final round is mainly for voting issues, but I am going to go ahead and rebuild my own case because my opponent got the chance to rebuild his. I will then present my voting issues. Overview Con: Prioritizing truth-seeking will not increase the amount of evidence available.One thing I want to make clear that the exceptions of ACP are not actually part of ACP. They are part of truth-seeking because they are (as my definition states) aiming to get or achieve the real facts about something. These exceptions are used today, showing that the USCJS does value truth-seeking. Because these exceptions do reveal more evidence, it can be concluded that the prioritization of truth-seeking is effective. My Value Definition Argument: If you, as a reader, do not buy my definition argument, look to the fact that my opponent's definition of justice (fair application of laws in society) is best met on my side because through truth-seeking, the goals of the USCJS are best achieved. I'll talk more about this as I defend my case. Con: Government legitimacy and justice achieve each other.This is partially true, but this debate is about justice in the USCJS, not the government. Thus, look to the value of justice as the most important. Con: Without ACP, the guilty have no chance of a fair trial; constitution not upheld.Attorney-client privilege is not being abolished, thus the constitution is upheld. A precedence of truth-seeking never forces a client to incriminate themselves, nor does it violate the sixth amendment. Finally, con notes that "a lack of ACP hinders a person's ability to engage in full and frank communication because the client will always fear that their own attorney might turn them in if they say to much." An attorney's duty is to protect their client; that is what the client pays the attorney to do. Even when truth-seeking has the precedence, the attorney probably will not turn their client in for saying too much unless one of the exceptions is put into play. On the other hand, when ACP has the precedence and the exceptions are taken away, there is always a chance the attorney could actually lie for their client, to avoid letting the truth be known. My Criterion Con starts out by providing a hypothetical scenario where, due to truth-seeking, a pedophile is not punished and released into society because he/she turned in a worse criminal. According to my opponent, this is not utilitarianistic. Firstly, if a worse criminal was turned in, society would actually benefit. Secondly, generally the USCJS would not completely forgive a pedophile of all charges in exchange for information, so justice would be achieved. Con brings up the full and frank communication argument again. I would like to cross apply my earlier argument on this subject. Like I said before, truth-seeking is the exceptions. There are instances when the attorney and client can engage in such communication under the privilege though truth-seeking is taking precedence. Lastly, con brings up that ACP leads to more accurate verdicts. Here we have to look at what will happen if truth-seeking is not prioritized. I talked about the very well known example of OJ Simpson earlier on. He disclosed large amount of information to his attorney. Though he was guilty, he came out innocent. The bottom line is, in this situation utilitarianism is not achieved because society is not benefited when a guilty man is released. Moreover, justice is not achieved because the criminal is not fairly punished. My First Contention Goal 1: Preventing and controlling crime. Now, as I said earlier. The USCJS already prioritizes truth-seeking through its exceptions. If we stop prioritizing truth-seeking by getting rid of the exceptions to attorney-client privilege, the accuracy of verdicts will go down. Goal 2: Protecting the innocent. For this goal, my opponent explains that the innocent are not being protected because truth-seeking is an invasion of their privacy. Truth-seeking is not going to force clients to disclose information unless it falls under one of the exceptions or it is vital to finding an accurate verdict; of course, an accurate verdict will protect the innocent. My Second Contention My opponent provides an example of a client being exposed as an adulterer because such information was deemed useful to finding an accurate verdict. In the end of my opponent's example the client was proved innocent, but also earned a bad reputation. Here with example, you must look to what would happen if the adultery was actually the client's motivation to murder. This information could actually be very helpful in providing an accurate verdict; thus, protecting other innocent suspects from being accused as guilty. My Third Contention Cross apply my first argument over my value. Exceptions to ACP fit the definition of truth-seeking, not attorney-client privilege. Voting Issues 1. The goals of the USCJS are best upheld with truth-seeking. Preventing and controlling crime: Look at crime fraud exception. This exception allows the USCJS to let truth-seeking take precedence when the client gives information about a crime that is going to happen or is happening. If ACP is held equal to truth-seeking or takes precedence, this important exception could be overlooked, therefore not preventing and controlling crime. Protecting the innocent: Exceptions of ACP lead to accurate verdicts. Ignoring truth-seeking in the attempt to protect a client's privacy will not actually help the innocent person at all. A ruined reputation is better than an innocent person in jail, as I said earlier while attacking my opponents example of the adulterer. Justice: I'll cross apply what I said when defending my value. Justice is only achieved with truth-seeking. 2. I win the value/criterion debate. Value (Justice) Justice is the most important thing to achieve in this debate because it is the primary goal of the USCJS. Again, Justice and Government Legitimacy achieve each other to some extent, but this is not a debate about legitimacy in the government, it is a debate about what would best suit the USCJS, making justice the ultimate goal. I am achieving this value by respecting the exceptions to ACP thus, adequately punishing crimes and criminals, and also achieving my opponent's definition of justice. Criterion (Utilitarianism) Utilitarianism is the best way to achieve justice. Truth-seeking is the action that benefits the largest amount of people. When the majority benefits, justice is achieved through fair and reasonable treatment of the people. 3. The USCJS already lets truth-seeking take precedence. Death of the ClientFiduciary DutyCrime/Fraud Exceptionas well as the exceptions my opponent listed… thus, prioritizing ACP would result in these vital exceptions being overlooked For these reasons, vote affirmative.