Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think defendants do tell their lawyers the truth as this communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege and it helps the lawyer craft a suitable defense.
So, what good does this do for society?
Had the law been such that admissions by the defendant must be made known to the court, Johnny would have had less chance of finding OJ not guilty - which is the way the trial of a truly guilty defendant should end up. Right?
1. It's oversimplifying the question to get it down to whether the person "did it" or not. In many cases, the question is not just whether the defendant performed a certain act, but whether the defendant had the requisite mental state at the time, whether there were any facts in existence that would constitute a defense even given the prohibited act, whether the charge is correct or overstated, what the right sentence will be, and undoubtedly many others.
2. The power to prosecute someone, use all the resources available to the state, including the ability to enter into and search homes, to subpoena financial and other records, to compel others to give evidence, and to imprison that person, is an awesome power. For centuries we have determined that this power of the state must not be unchecked, but must only be exercised for the most compelling reasons. The only way to ensure that the power won't be abused, and that only the guilty will be convicted and punished, is to make sure that all criminal defendants are afforded an adequate defense.
3. Just wait until you're charged with a crime. Guilty or not, you'll be looking for the best lawyer you can find and afford.
I recognize that hypocrisy is a moral failing, not a logical one, but it illustrates that a principle that may be appealing in the abstract can be shown to be less so in its concrete application.
So, what good does this do for society?
Had the law been such that admissions by the defendant must be made known to the court, Johnny would have had less chance of finding OJ not guilty - which is the way the trial of a truly guilty defendant should end up. Right?
You posted several times here. I note your latest series of posts is occurring several months after you stopped replying to the thread that you began. What's been going on the last three months?
I ask, because unfortunately, in three months it doesn't sound like you've taken the time to read much of anything said to you in reply.
I think most of us (including myself) agree that if lawyers had to reveal that clients indicated they were guilty it might very well "streamline" the process of convicting criminal defendants.
What you seem unwilling to do is look at any larger picture than simply determining guilt or innocence of individual defendants. You fail to see the larger implications that this would have on constitutional rights and the right of Americans to feel safe from their own government. Again, the system we have in America isn't designed to obtain the most convictions possible of criminal defendants. Its designed to strike a balance between individual rights and protecting citizens from crime.
Finally, stop and think about this: If a lawyer were obligated to reveal any admissions made by a client to the court how many clients would confide anything at all to lawyers? Word would get out pretty fast and none would. This, in effect, would destroy the ability of lawyers to work with criminal defendants. One might as well do away with the right to counsel completely.
Its o.k. to have a new idea. However, when its shown to be a poor idea, one shouldn't hold onto to it like a junkyard dog.
You posted several times here. I note your latest series of posts is occurring several months after you stopped replying to the thread that you began. What's been going on the last three months?
I ask, because unfortunately, in three months it doesn't sound like you've taken the time to read much of anything said to you in reply.
I think most of us (including myself) agree that if lawyers had to reveal that clients indicated they were guilty it might very well "streamline" the process of convicting criminal defendants.
What you seem unwilling to do is look at any larger picture than simply determining guilt or innocence of individual defendants. You fail to see the larger implications that this would have on constitutional rights and the right of Americans to feel safe from their own government. Again, the system we have in America isn't designed to obtain the most convictions possible of criminal defendants. Its designed to strike a balance between individual rights and protecting citizens from crime.
Finally, stop and think about this: If a lawyer were obligated to reveal any admissions made by a client to the court how many clients would confide anything at all to lawyers? Word would get out pretty fast and none would. This, in effect, would destroy the ability of lawyers to work with criminal defendants. One might as well do away with the right to counsel completely.
Its o.k. to have a new idea. However, when its shown to be a poor idea, one shouldn't hold onto to it like a junkyard dog.
I apologize for re-hashing without re-reading every post. My bad.
However, I still haven't read anything that has shown the benefit of attorney client privilege other than "see the larger implications that this would have on constitutional rights and the right of Americans to feel safe from their own government". For example, what implications? Were any noted in the thread? I didn't see them. Just because something is in the constitution (not sure if attorney client privilege is), doesn't mean it is the best way of doing things.
What is the harm in making it law that an attorney must reveal admissions to the court?
What is the harm in making it law that an attorney must reveal admissions to the court?
um...he already stated that:
Quote:
...the system we have in America isn't designed to obtain the most convictions possible of criminal defendants. Its designed to strike a balance between individual rights and protecting citizens from crime.
...If a lawyer were obligated to reveal any admissions made by a client to the court how many clients would confide anything at all to lawyers? Word would get out pretty fast and none would. This, in effect, would destroy the ability of lawyers to work with criminal defendants. One might as well do away with the right to counsel completely.
In other words,
1) the American system isn't set up to convict as many people as possible and
2) defendants would stop being honest with their attorneys
1) the American system isn't set up to convict as many people as possible and
2) defendants would stop being honest with their attorneys
Isn't it in America's best interests to convict as many as possible, people who have truly committed the crime? Wouldn't that be a good thing? If not, why not? If a person didn't' commit a crime, nothing changes; if they did commit the crime, then the probability of being convicted goes up. Why is this a bad thing?
Only defendants who truly committed the crime would stop being honest with their attorneys. So, what is wrong with that? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Isn't it in America's best interests to convict as many as possible, people who have truly committed the crime? Wouldn't that be a good thing? If not, why not? If a person didn't' commit a crime, nothing changes; if they did commit the crime, then the probability of being convicted goes up. Why is this a bad thing?
Only defendants who truly committed the crime would stop being honest with their attorneys. So, what is wrong with that? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
No, it's not in America's best interest to convict as many as possible.
Secondly, guilt shouldn't mean automatic admission to punitive measures. In other words, sometimes people commit illegal acts for good reasons (self-defense, etc.) and they shouldn't have to automatically go to jail.
Thirdly, our system, though not perfect, works. The people who have committed a heinous crime go to jail and those who've committed lesser crimes go free or get lighter sentences, as it should be.
What is the harm in making it law that an attorney must reveal admissions to the court?
It undoes a few hundred years of precedence for an adversarial system?
You place the defendant in the situation of either testifying against himself or giving up the right to a meaningful defense. The defendant doesn't know the law in great detail and won't know whether the court would consider any extenuating circumstances. The defense lawyer does, but if the client can't tell him the details without self-incrimination, how can the lawyer mount a defense?
I'm stealing an example from another board: Lets say there's a jurisdiction out there that has two crimes, mopery and dopery.
Mopery is defined as "Walking down a public street with no clear destination". Dopery is defined as "Walking down a public street with no clear destination between the hours of midnight and 5 am" - dopery being the less serious offense.
The defendant, not being a lawyer, has no idea of the distinction. He's probably even unaware of the legal definition of "clear destination". But he knows that he's in trouble and that one careless word could put him in way more trouble. So he clams up (wouldn't you?), and his lawyer never gets to ask him the very pertinent question of when he actually walked, what the circumstances were, nor does the lawyer get to challenge the precision of the arresting officer's watch.
So even if the defendant is only factually guilty of dopery, a tough-on-crime DA stands every chance of locking him up for the more severe crime of mopery.
It's not as cut-and-dried as "Did you pull the trigger?" - the court very often knows that. The case then turns into "What was the defendant's state of mind when he pulled the trigger?" - was he justifiably scared for his life (self-defense) or was he executing the final step in a long and complex scheme to get revenge on a hated enemy (premeditated murder)? That's the sort of thing defense lawyers have to suss out, and if the defendant stands to lose big on admitting anything, he won't.
Not sure if I agree with you and I'm also not sure you completely understand what I am writing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett
No, it's not in America's best interest to convict as many as possible. I think it is our best interests to convict as many people who truly performed the crime as possible - not as many people as possible.
Reducing Overcrowded jails is more important than justice?
Secondly, guilt shouldn't mean automatic admission to punitive measures. In other words, sometimes people commit illegal acts for good reasons (self-defense, etc.) and they shouldn't have to automatically go to jail.
Thirdly, our system, though not perfect, works. The people who have committed a heinous crime go to jail and those who've committed lesser crimes go free or get lighter sentences, as it should be.
What about OJ (in the context of the original criminal not civil trial)? He didn't go to jail. He was found not guilty. If he told Johnny the truth that he committed the crime and such, that may have helped Johnny get a guily person off. Had OJ been forced to lie then Johnny's job may have been harder and therefore OJ might not have been found not guilty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
at least its more interesting than corp. law. ...people are so unpredictable.
