Affirmative Case Imagine an innocent person on trial for murder. The lawyer representing his or her case knows that she is innocent and he knows a person that can prove it. However, the legal systems prevent the defense attorney from forcing the doctor to testify simply because his testimony involves privileged communication. If the legal system does not give truth-seeking precedence over privileged communication, situations like this one will occur, and innocent people will be punished for crimes, which will occur that they did not commit. Truth seeking must be given precedence over privileged communication.
My value premise will be justice, since the resolution is about the judicial system and truth seeking, and my value criterion will be Judicial Legitimacy, because a just judicial system would protect the innocent. I offer the following definitions: 1. Truth- Webster’s Dictionary-is the conformity to fact or actuality. 2.
Seeking- Webster’s Dictionary-is to try to obtain, the act of searching for something, or an attempt to acquire or gain something. 3. Privileged communication-Black’s Law Dictionary-are statements made by certain persons within a protected relationship, such as husband and wife, attorney and client, priest and penitent and the like, which the law protects from forced disclosure on the witness stand at the option of the witness, client, penitent, spouse. My first contention is that in the US Judicial system, truth seeking ought to take precedence over privileged communication because it can be used for law. If truth seeking were to be valued over privileged communication, public safety can become enhanced because criminals can be caught easier. This is because relationships between husband and wife, priest and penitent, attorney and client, and other relationships with privileged communication can be used to gather information to catch criminals.
The Essay on Legal System Innocent Capability Law
The Court System, And It's Capability To Put Innocent People Into Jail Or To Death As Seen In The Book A Tale Of Two Cities English Paper Topic: The court system, and it's capability to put innocent people into jail or to death. James Laurie There are many examples in the book A Tale of Two Cities of mistakes made by the legal system. The legal system has the capability to punish innocent men, and ...
Therefore, criminals can be caught faster because police have more to work with to catch them. This is also because the information gathered will allow the convicted to enjoy a speedy trial, as stated in Amendment 6. Many people in jails across America are innocent, because privileged communication leaves a gate closed to the judicial system in terms of truth seeking. This is because since the conversation is closed off to the law enforcers, and there is insufficient information to conclude that the defendant is innocent, so they are thrown in jail. This is due to the fact that insufficient information is available to conclude that the defendant is innocent or guilty, and what evidence are available points to guilty. With truth seeking being valued above privileged communication, more information can be gathered, and can save one man’s life.
My second contention is that the in the US Judicial system, Truth Seeking ought to take precedence over privileged communication because intelligence is gained. My first sub point states that the government could use truth seeking to find evidence for crimes, and that this way, people are not persecuted when innocent. As I said before, there are people in the American jails that are innocent, and sentenced to jail because of failure to collect sufficient intelligence about the case. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the good way to do it, but when the “proven” part of it is skewed, and then there is work to do. Privileged communication is what skews this, because information that can be used in the defendant’s favor is withheld from the jury. If truth seeking did precede privileged communication, then innocent people will not be jailed for what they did not do, as stated before, privileged communication holds back information that may be used to prove a defendant’s innocence.
The Essay on Oedipus Truth King People
There is nothing wrong with Oedipus committing into searching who killed the King Laius. Oedipus behave as the king and it was the best thing to do to show his authority to his population. As story goes, the purpose to search the murder changes. Oedipus ignoring each advises that warn him about risk to know the truth have gradually become selfish. At the end, everything is uncovered, letting ...
For my third contention, the government should allow truth-seeking precedence over privileged communication for the good of foreign affairs. Spies and ambassadors alike can “give” information for diplomatic situations, because it would no longer be protected by privileged communication. Terrorists and the like can be hunted down and captured when the communication between priest-penitent and the like can be used against the person in question, because the law enforcers have sufficient information to hunt down and convict terrorists before terror attacks happen, thus improving public safety. So, therefore, In order to gain justice, Judicial Legitimacy should be achieved by truth seeking preceding privileged communication. We can get to justice, the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law, through a reform in Judicial Legitimacy. The US Judicial system can become legitimate after allowing truth seeking to be valued over privileged communication to protect and correctly convict the innocence.
Negative Case “You are a human being. You have rights inherited in that reality. You have dignity and worth that exist prior to law.” Because I agree with Lyn Beth Nylon, in the US Judicial System, privileged communication ought to take precedence over privileged communication. My value premise will be justice. Justice is the upholding of what is right, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. My value criterion will be Human Rights, because human rights are an essential part of providing justice.
I will accept the definitions that have been given. My first contention is that in the US Judicial System, Truth seeking should not be valued over privileged communication because privileged communication protects privacy. If truth seeking were to override privileged communication, personal privacy will be infringed upon because people will be raked for clues. Because relationships between husband and wife, priest and penitent, attorney and client, and other relationships that apply with the coordinates of privileged communication are meant to be protected and concealed from other people, law enforcers should not interrogate people such as wives, priests, and attorneys for their spouse’s and / or client’s offenses. This is because it is a violation of privacy. Privacy is important because it is an unwritten right that human beings are entitled to.
The Essay on Truth and Justice
In the crucible it is clear that different characters have different understandings of the concept of truth and justice. In the following essay I am going to critically analyse the views held by these characters. Even though John is a man of integrity who holds himself to high moral standard there are times when he lapses occasionally, this is evident when we discover his affair with Abigail. ...
In the fourth amendment, there is a right of the people to be secure in their homes from search in seizure, and that it shall not be violated. Nowhere in the fourth amendment does it limit to physical seizure, therefore, truth seeking being valued over privileged communication would violate this process in terms of intelligence. For that reason, if the US Judicial system were to value truth seeking over privileged communication, it would be infringing the forth amendment. The wives, priests, friends, attorneys, and etcetera will have not be able to retain the information to themselves because the authorities will now have the right to break the seal of privileged communication, which is therein infringing the fourth amendment once again. In addition, since they are unable to retain the information due to the right the authorities have, it is also infringing upon the liberty of the people in question, which leads into my next contention. My second contention is that in the US Judicial System, truth seeking should not be valued over privileged communication because it infringes on the liberty of the American people.
If the government used truth seeking over privileged communication to find evidence for crimes, the liberty of American people would be infringed upon because they no longer have the right to privacy, and can no longer keep the confidential information to themselves. Consequently, the people no longer have the liberty to be able to keep hold of their personal conversations against the law enforcers. It is important to keep personal conversations withheld because of privileged communication because it is implied in the constitution, which states that forced privacy should not be violated. Therefore, therefore, In order to gain justice, we must first keep privileged communication above truth seeking in order to maintain and obey human rights. We can achieve justice through human rights because if we uphold human rights, justice, which is defined as the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. In conclusion, truth seeking should not precede privileged communication to gain justice, by maintaining the written and implied human rights.
The Essay on Truth Seeking Vs Privileged Communication
Richie Robinson 1 AC "Honesty is always the best policy" Because I agree with Benjamin Franklin and believe that honesty provides for a better judicial system, I stand Resolved: In the United States Judicial System, truth seeking ought to take precedence over Privileged communication. I will begin definitions of terms from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1. Truth Seeking- Conformity to fact or ...
I now turn to my opponent’s case:.
