Preview

The Fifth Amendment and Self-Incrimination

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
842 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Fifth Amendment and Self-Incrimination
The fifth amendment states that, “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 public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense 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”. Would the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prohibit the government from any of the following: requiring all participants in a lineup to speak certain words; requiring a person to produce income tax records; threatening a person with a reduction in pay in his government job if he does not make incriminating testimonial admissions about a matter not related to his job? A details analysis of the Fifth Amendment and self-incrimination will help us to determine the answer to this question.

According to Law.com dictionary, self-incrimination exist when a defendant gives statements or producing evidence which tends to prove that he/she is guilty of a crime. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear on that issue that no one should have to compel in any criminal case to be a witness against her/himself. Base on that definition, a defendant has the right to refuse to testify in court on the basis that the testimony may be self-incriminating. The Miranda right reinforces that right to remain silent otherwise anything one says might be used against him/her in court. Base on the information presented in chapter one of the textbook p.29-30, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination would not prohibit the government from requiring all participants in a lineup to speak certain words, “it is not a testimonial. It would

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    As further reiterated, “Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary statements by definition. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states “No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The issue here was whether or not the conversation was in fact an interrogation based on the subdivision called the “functional equivalent” of questioning, described as ‘any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect’. The court found that the conversation did not fall within the Miranda meaning of “interrogation” because it was concluded as being nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers, which invited no response from the respondent, and was clearly not a questioning initiated by officers. Furthermore, the conversation also was found not to fall under the description of “functional equivalent” because the few ‘offhand’ remarks that the officers made to one another in no way subjected the respondent to elicit a statement of admission, nor were the officers’ actions subjecting the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was found to have given a confession in a voluntary manner and that his Fifth Amendment rights were not deprived because he was not compelled or forced in any way to…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Their reasoning behind this decision was because it needed to be stated that he had to the right to remain silent. Not only this, but he was not told that anything that he said could be used against him in the future. These reasons were then able to prove that Miranda was not able to speak to the police freely upon his own choice of decision. One of the reasons for the decision made was because Miranda did not know he had the right to an attorney leading for him to not have full knowledge of the case and what was going on. Therefore, because the fifth amendment was not applicable to the situation that Miranda was in the prosecution should not have been able to use any of the statements that were…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The fifth amendment prohibits double jeopardy (del Carmen, 2014). The concept behind prohibiting double jeopardy is to protect the defendant from being tried and punished twice for a single crime, but this doesn’t mean that after a verdict is handed down the process ends (del Carmen, 2014). They can try and get an appeal so that their case and verdict will be reviewed (del Carmen, 2014).…

    • 335 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Sixth Amendment states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (How to brief 2006)." The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. In Brown v. Mississippi (1936), the Court had ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that persons accused of felonies have a fundamental right to an attorney,…

    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Pleading the Fifth “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” – Thomas Jefferson. Thirteen worthy representatives from the original British Colonies came together in Philadelphia in 1787 for a specific and important situation relating to the future of the United States of America as a new nation. During the late 18th century, Philadelphia became known as the epicenter for emerging commerce, and many of the most important political debates and meetings were held there. During the meetings in 1787 including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other Founding Fathers primarily concerned the approval of the new Constitution of the United States by the American populace.…

    • 2440 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The fifth amendment's privilege not to answer, critics carp, insulates the guilty defendant from revealing his complicity.' While this is true, ironically it also can…

    • 4738 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The grand jury originated in England, under the rule of King John. The king selected the grand jury to be a body of his reign that would accuse no innocent person, and would shelter no guilty person. The Fifth Amendment of the United States protects people from self-incrimination by forcing the prosecution to obtain an indictment (complaint) from a grand jury before the case can be presented in trial before a court. Today, grand juries are virtually inexistent with the exception of the United States, which in some cases, still utilizes a grand jury. The Fifth Amendment clause on grand juries does not protect individuals serving in the military because they are considered to be United States property. By federal law, misdemeanors do not require an indictment to be obtained for a trial. Federal law only requires an indictment for felony cases to be presented before a court.…

    • 2747 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Warnings

    • 260 Words
    • 2 Pages

    no. the miranda RIGHTS. protect our freedoms. without them we could end up a police state.In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is where the suspects freedom of movement is restrained although he is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. However, police may request biographical information such…

    • 260 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Criminal law by nature is interesting to most people. However, there are many citizens that misinterpret what their rights are in a court of law. For instance, the Fifth amendment is a person’s right to not self-incriminate. Defendants typically do not address the court directly. They do so through they attorney. Attorneys are “responsible for advising their clients of their right to testify, whether or not it is wise to do so, as ell as the strategic implications of that decision” (Stock, 2015, p. 712). Just because a defendant does not testify on their own behalf, should not presume guilt. The sixth amendment stipulates that a defendant has the right to an attorney and to a jury trial. This is the premise where miranda rights come into play.…

    • 639 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Maarv, H. (2011, July 6). Can I Serve a Subpoena to Anyone if I Need Him in Court? Retrieved February 26, 2012, from ehow: http://www.ehow.com/info_8698507_can-anyone-need-him-court.html…

    • 1065 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The United State Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona that because of the inherent coercion present in the police interrogation all suspects must be made aware of their rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. When the case reached the Supreme Courts in 1966,…

    • 1389 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Burden of proof simply means that the prosecution has the pressure applied to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. According to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This simply means that by law, the prosecutor is not allowed to call defendants to the witness stand in criminal trials. Furthermore, it bars the prosecutor from statements that regard the defendant’s right to make a statement permitting the defendant to be able to ask the court to clear the jury on the grounds of guilt. (Samaha, 2012, p.456). In proof beyond a reasonable doubt, defendants are not allowed to prove whether or not they are innocent. The right against self-incrimination grants the defendant the right to remain silent and it not count against them. This would also be referred to as the reasonable doubt standard, which would require for the government to carry the full and complete burden of proving the defendant guilty.…

    • 481 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays