< >
Hello, guest! Please log in or register.

The PokéCommunity

Go Back     The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > The Round Table Client-Attorney Privilege


The Round Table Have a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.

Reply Post Reply
Thread Tools
Old May 14th, 2013 (10:03 PM).
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger The Dark Avenger is offline
Vengeance is Vine
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The States
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 1,900
This is one issue I have much difficulty with; though I have some preconceived notion in favor and against both, I cannot say with any certainty where a line should be drawn between alleged criminal rights and allowing for a more efficient justice system.

What would you do?

1) My client tells me he killed his mother. What is the ethical discourse to take? Preserve client-attorney privilege or breach it and not adequately defend your client. Or neither?

2) My client is an alleged rapist and child molester. It is my duty to only take on a client that I can adequately defend to the best of my ability; do I have a duty as a lawyer court-appointed to the case to defend this client regardless of charges made? As a lawyer, is it my job to not assume guilt of my client, even speculative evidence all points to guilt?

3) Does the justice system (U.S or otherwise), sometimes protect people who have committed crimes? Would this happen less often without the defendant protections? Would more innocent people be behind bars if these protection were not in place? If yes to the last two questions, that more people who commit crimes are acquitted and more innocent people are put behind bars, which is worse, and what is the best remedy?

Bonus: Not related directly to the prompt, but applicable.
How has media negatively/positively affected the criminal justice system in high-profile cases?
Do we as people often jump to the conclusion that someone is guilty without knowing all of the facts? For instance, the Casey Anthony case. I will not say either way that the verdict was right or wrong, though most people have assumed guilt with VERY LITTLE knowledge of the court proceedings.


You can choose to address these questions or not; they are here to help you begin to think about each of these ethical dilemmas.
Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2013 (6:44 PM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows twocows is offline
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Gold Tier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Posts: 4,122
As a defense attorney, it is your duty to act in the best interest of your client, not to find the truth. That particular role is delegated to the judge and/or jury, who arrive at that decision based on the arguments and evidence produced by each side. If you believe that system is correct and respect it, you should fulfill your role to the best of your abilities. If you have ethical concerns and do not want to represent a client, then don't. Someone will, and that is as it should be.

Our system is designed to err on the side of producing fewer false positives than false negatives; we value the innocence of innocents more than the guilt of the guilty. Those who have done no wrong should not be made to suffer under the law. I agree with this system, even if it means sometimes we'll let the bad guy go free. If you disagree, you should be trying to change it from the outside, not circumventing it from within. Do not choose to accept a role if you are not prepared to follow through.
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]
Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2013 (1:57 PM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
Platinum Tier
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,435
As someone who is in law school, I can tell you that revealing ANYTHING that your client has told you is a serious violation of legal ethics, and could get you disbarred!

Our legal system is an adversarial system. Both sides of the case are expected to be only do what's in the best interests of their clients, and the judge and jury are supposed to rule on the law or the facts that are presented to them.
Reply With Quote
Reply Post Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump

  All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:03 PM.

Contact Us Archive Privacy Statement Terms of Service Top