Attorney-Client Privilege: The Flaw On Our Justice System
Attorney-Client Privilege:
The Flaw on Our Justice System
Abstract
This paper explores what I think is the constitutional flaw of our criminal justice system, attorney-client privilege. Under certain circumstances, information possessed by an attorney cannot be disclosed to others without the client 's consent because of the attorney-client privilege or certain other legal concepts. The attorney-client privilege, which dates back to the reign of Elizabeth I, was originally based on the concept that an attorney should not be required to testify against the client and, thereby, violate a duty of loyalty owed to the client. At that …show more content…
The adversarial nature of formal conflict resolution upon which our common law system is based often neglects to provide American citizens with justice. Clearly justice can be defined in a list of different ways, and justice cannot be regarded as one definite, worldwide accepted ideal. For the purposes of this discussion, however, the function of criminal trials in the U.S. will be defined in the most simple of terms: the discovery of the truth in a given situation through due process of law, such that those who are guilty of crimes portrayed by arranged laws are punished through fines, imprisonment, and other established reprimands. This truth, however, is sometimes not reached in trials, and the adversarial system is often to blame for this failure. More specifically, it is the roll that attorneys play within this system in which it is the responsibility of these officials only to win cases with any means legally possible, not to aid the discovery of true facts that prevent the system’s ability to uncover the truth in matters. Thus, the adversarial roll of lawyers within the legal system hinders the pursuit of discovering who, in fact, is innocent, and who is guilty in legal disputes and trials, effectively impeding the system’s ability to achieve its purpose in the aforesaid …show more content…
Subin through an experience he had as an attorney. When representing a client accused of rape, Subin grew suspicious of his client’s claimed innocence, as certain nuances of the case didn’t logically support his alibi. Subin states: “I had my suspicions about...the client’s version of what had occurred, and I supposed a jury would as well. The problem was theirs, however, not mine. All I had to do was present my client’s version of what occurred in the best way that I could...Or was that all that was required? Committed to the adversarial spirit..., I decided that it was not. The ‘different mission’ took me beyond the task of presenting my client’s position in a legally correct and persuasive manner, to trying to untrack the state’s case in any lawful way that occurred to me, regardless of the
The Flaw on Our Justice System
Abstract
This paper explores what I think is the constitutional flaw of our criminal justice system, attorney-client privilege. Under certain circumstances, information possessed by an attorney cannot be disclosed to others without the client 's consent because of the attorney-client privilege or certain other legal concepts. The attorney-client privilege, which dates back to the reign of Elizabeth I, was originally based on the concept that an attorney should not be required to testify against the client and, thereby, violate a duty of loyalty owed to the client. At that …show more content…
The adversarial nature of formal conflict resolution upon which our common law system is based often neglects to provide American citizens with justice. Clearly justice can be defined in a list of different ways, and justice cannot be regarded as one definite, worldwide accepted ideal. For the purposes of this discussion, however, the function of criminal trials in the U.S. will be defined in the most simple of terms: the discovery of the truth in a given situation through due process of law, such that those who are guilty of crimes portrayed by arranged laws are punished through fines, imprisonment, and other established reprimands. This truth, however, is sometimes not reached in trials, and the adversarial system is often to blame for this failure. More specifically, it is the roll that attorneys play within this system in which it is the responsibility of these officials only to win cases with any means legally possible, not to aid the discovery of true facts that prevent the system’s ability to uncover the truth in matters. Thus, the adversarial roll of lawyers within the legal system hinders the pursuit of discovering who, in fact, is innocent, and who is guilty in legal disputes and trials, effectively impeding the system’s ability to achieve its purpose in the aforesaid …show more content…
Subin through an experience he had as an attorney. When representing a client accused of rape, Subin grew suspicious of his client’s claimed innocence, as certain nuances of the case didn’t logically support his alibi. Subin states: “I had my suspicions about...the client’s version of what had occurred, and I supposed a jury would as well. The problem was theirs, however, not mine. All I had to do was present my client’s version of what occurred in the best way that I could...Or was that all that was required? Committed to the adversarial spirit..., I decided that it was not. The ‘different mission’ took me beyond the task of presenting my client’s position in a legally correct and persuasive manner, to trying to untrack the state’s case in any lawful way that occurred to me, regardless of the