by Atra Mors » Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:59 pm
by Atra Mors » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:09 pm
by Condunum » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:10 pm
Soy lor n wrote:No, being accused of a crime is not sufficient reason to take someone's rights away.
by Soy lor n » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:15 pm
Atra Mors wrote:But it isn't taking all of their rights away, it is only whatever is necessary to obtain the truth.
by Pope Joan » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:19 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:21 pm
by Natapoc » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:22 pm
by Tsa-la-gi Nation » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:22 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:25 pm
by Wickedly evil people » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:26 pm
by Soy lor n » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:29 pm
by Atra Mors » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:36 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:39 pm
Atra Mors wrote:Shouldn't the truth be worth more than attorney client confidentiality though? since technically what if the conversation held crucial evidence, like how the discussion earlier was saying. util calculus can be applied, "the end justifies the means" If the case is resolved, and the defendent found not guilty, he can go back to his normal life, however, if he is found guilty he can be arrested. looking from a extremem perspective, lets say it is a terrorist case, i don't think the Miranda rights of the terrorist does not outweigh the importance of the safety of a country.
by Soy lor n » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:42 pm
by Natapoc » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:42 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Let's go for a worst case scenario here.
And it isn't
"A lawyer knows his client did it, but still argues for his innocence." because that shits par for the course. The lawyer is there specifically to give every person the best arguments they have. Think of the lawyer as a computer script, specifically told by their client what the desired outcome is.
The lawyer tells them if thats reasonable, but if pressed, they go for it anyway. A lawyer is, in essence, pretending to argue for themselves when they argue for their client.
Everything the lawyer is saying is something the client could be saying, if they knew what the law is. So it isn't a problem.
What the REAL worst case scenario is, is if their client confesses to them
"Oh, that guy on death row on the news? Totally didn't do it. It was me. Lol."
Now, in that situation, I have no idea what we should advocate.
Now, in that situation, the lawyer isn't just speaking instead of the client.
The client couldn't (Or wouldn't) come forward and say "Btw, it was me."
In the former situation, the lawyer is saying things that the client would LIKE to say, but doesn't know how to.
In the latter, it's entirely different. The lawyer is saying nothing, which the client is also capable of doing.
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:45 pm
Natapoc wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:Let's go for a worst case scenario here.
And it isn't
"A lawyer knows his client did it, but still argues for his innocence." because that shits par for the course. The lawyer is there specifically to give every person the best arguments they have. Think of the lawyer as a computer script, specifically told by their client what the desired outcome is.
The lawyer tells them if thats reasonable, but if pressed, they go for it anyway. A lawyer is, in essence, pretending to argue for themselves when they argue for their client.
Everything the lawyer is saying is something the client could be saying, if they knew what the law is. So it isn't a problem.
What the REAL worst case scenario is, is if their client confesses to them
"Oh, that guy on death row on the news? Totally didn't do it. It was me. Lol."
Now, in that situation, I have no idea what we should advocate.
Now, in that situation, the lawyer isn't just speaking instead of the client.
The client couldn't (Or wouldn't) come forward and say "Btw, it was me."
In the former situation, the lawyer is saying things that the client would LIKE to say, but doesn't know how to.
In the latter, it's entirely different. The lawyer is saying nothing, which the client is also capable of doing.
I agree although a confession should not be enough to determine guilt. Any confession needs to be compared with evidence for several reasons.
A popular one is, every time a famous murder is up on the news several people confess (I know it seems weird but it's true).
The classic example is the Lindbergh kidnapping case where more than 200 people confessed to the crime.
A less popular one is the following situation:
a) Person A commits crime.
b) Person B is coerced, tricked, or paid to confess to crime by person A.
The most popular reason people confess to crimes they did not commit is when police interrogation techniques break them down to the point they simply confess because they can't take the interrogation anymore ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123938&page=1 )
Any proper justice system would never take a confession at face value or as the basis upon which to convict.
by Soy lor n » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:54 pm
Atra Mors wrote:Shouldn't the truth be worth more than attorney client confidentiality though? since technically what if the conversation held crucial evidence, like how the discussion earlier was saying. util calculus can be applied, "the end justifies the means" If the case is resolved, and the defendent found not guilty, he can go back to his normal life, however, if he is found guilty he can be arrested. looking from a extremem perspective, lets say it is a terrorist case, i don't think the Miranda rights of the terrorist does not outweigh the importance of the safety of a country.
by The J » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:04 pm
by Llamalandia » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:04 pm
Atra Mors wrote:So there is a new Lincoln Douglas topic that came out around a week ago, and it was asking if in the U.S. criminal justice system, Truth seeking ought to take precedence over Attorney Client Privilege. Personally, I think it should. I mean people, especially people charged with a crime ought to give up some of their rights for the benefit of the community. Granted, not all people charged are always guilty, but it can certainly make the community a safer place. Attorney Client Privilege are not really needed since if guilty, they are jailed anyways. So, what does everyone else think?
Are Attorney Client Privilege really necessary?
or is Truth Seeking the answer?
or even better, is there any middle floor between the two?
International Audiences welcomed to join.
by The J » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:05 pm
by Llamalandia » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:08 pm
by Linux and the X » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:21 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Australian rePublic, Big Eyed Animation, Carameon, Eahland, ImSaLiA, Ineva, Kerwa, Kostane, La Paz de Los Ricos, Majestic-12 [Bot], Maximum Imperium Rex, Rumacia and Thrace, Shrillland, Soul Reapers, Tiami, Welskerland
Advertisement