Never trust a chaplain!

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Then people won't trust in their lawyers and chaplains any more.  Think about the consequences of that. 

I don't really see any beyond lawyers not being told a few details and thus possibly working wrong angle on some cases.

It undermines the entire adversarial system of law in common law countries, for one thing.  The attorney plays a role - that of a champion for the accused.  If the accused can't trust him, the system breaks down. The adversarial system recognizes that no one is going to objectively seek the truth, because everyone has their own biases. So it simply acknowledges that human weakness, and lets the champions fight it out in court.  Take away the implicit trust that an accused has toward his attorney, and you impede the champion's ability to fight for his client.  The end result of this role play probably comes closer to actual truth than a system based upon some supposed objective fact-finding inquiry by a tribunal.

[xSilverPhinx]

Tricky ethics, this. On one hand you have a confessor who confided in you, but on the other you have the victim's family who suffer until they get some form of closure. Sometimes it can be difficult to reconcile the two and get a good enough result for both.

Firstly, I agree with what others have said that the chaplain told his supervisor because the guy wasn't religious is absurd. Meaning that if he was religious, then it would've been kept a secret?! WTF?!

Then people won't trust in their lawyers and chaplains any more.  Think about the consequences of that. 

I don't really see any beyond lawyers not being told a few details and thus possibly working wrong angle on some cases.

It undermines the entire adversarial system of law in common law countries, for one thing.  The attorney plays a role - that of a champion for the accused.  If the accused can't trust him, the system breaks down. The adversarial system recognizes that no one is going to objectively seek the truth, because everyone has their own biases. So it simply acknowledges that human weakness, and lets the champions fight it out in court.  Take away the implicit trust that an accused has toward his attorney, and you impede the champion's ability to fight for his client. 

The end result of this role play probably comes closer to actual truth than a system based upon some supposed objective fact-finding inquiry by a tribunal.

What happens in the case where the lawyer knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?

[Asmodean]

What happens in the case where the lawyer knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?

The defence attorney, if he's worth his salary, then lies, cheats and steals in order to comform the legal system to the demands of his case. And many attorneys who are in fact worth their salaries often succeed in getting their guilty clients off the hook.

Me, I don't subscribe to the "Better let ten scumbags go free than toss one innocent in jail", so I dislike that practice.

[OldGit]

What happens in the case where the lawyer knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?

In the UK, the theory is that the solicitor (general low-rank lawyer) knows whether or not the client is guilty, but the barrister (lawyer who pleads in court) is not told, so he never has to lie.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What happens in the case where the lawyer knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?

In the American system, the attorney is a role-player, not a truth-seeker. His role is to be the champion for his client. His ethical obligation is to seek the best interests of his client, within the bounds of the law and professional ethics.  He is not to lie to the court, but he can object and spin the evidence and make whatever arguments the evidence, by extension, may allow.  It's up to the judge to decide what evidence is admitted and what arguments are allowed. It's up to the prosecutor to present the evidence in favor of guilt and to make the arguments that convince the jury of such. It's up to the jury to decide the fact.  Everyone has his/her role, and the ultimate end of the drama is (hopefully) justice. It works pretty well. 

If I know the client is guilty, 1) I try to get the best deal for him I can and try to convince him to take it; 2) if that doesn't work, I come up with the best theory, consistent with the evidence, that I can.  The attorney for Casey Anthony did the latter to perfection, and got an acquittal.

[Asmodean]

Why are there jury trials anyways..? Would it not be better to leave the verdicts to professionals in law or at least like... Psychology..?

[OldGit]

Who is less likely to be bent, 12 morons or 2 lawyers?

[Asmodean]

Who is less likely to be bent, 12 morons or 2 lawyers?

Well, the twelve morons can REALLY suck at getting to the right verdict.