Fifth Amendment

[Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or in public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think that this is one of the best known amendments, because of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which allows for people to "plead the fifth." But it seems that the other five clauses are not as well known. For instance the Grand Jury Clause, which guarantees Americans cannot be charged with serious federal crimes unless with an indictment by a grand jury, or the Double Jeopardy Clause which guarantees that Americans cannot be tried twice or punished twice for the same crime are just as important for criminal proceedings as being able to "plead the fifth." Furthermore this amendment's Due Process and Eminent Domain Clauses are not even associated with criminal proceedings, and secure an American's right to "life, liberty, or property" (Due Process) and that they must be compensated if their land is to be taken by the government (Eminent Domain). 

The fifth amendment requires anyone being taken into police custody to be read their Miranda Rights--which is basically their right to not make any self-incriminating statements. There are four basic parts to this: 

1. You have the right to remain silent
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
3. You have the right to an attorney
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you 

Although, I think it is important for people to know their rights, I think that there are some flaws with this clause. The biggest issue that I have with this is that if a suspect is taken into custody without having been given the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary and as a result, any evidence discovered because of that statement or confession will likely be thrown out of the case.

 

Although I understand the reasons for the Double Jeopardy Clause, it still seems so wrong that something like this can happen. How is it possible that our legal system is set up so that if someone is not charged with a crime, they can admit to it and still not be punished? Or what if new evidence were to come up that would convict the person after charges were dropped? 

I think one of the best known instances where this clause has faced some controversy is with the OJ Simpson case, where even after he was let go, he wrote a book, where he basically admitted to his crime. Yet because of double jeopardy, dangerous criminals do have the chance to walk away without any punishment.