Understanding the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crimes, 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”.

“I plead the fifth” is a common phrase in the media, but what does this mean? To understand this amendment, we need to start at the beginning. Ratified in 1791 and significantly influenced by English common law. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens’ life, freedom, and property by requiring that legal reasons be provided before taking them. It actively protects citizens from being tried multiple times for the same crime by extending its safeguards into the courtroom. Prevents individuals from incriminating themselves and affords them the right to fair and equal treatment under the law.

Key Clauses Explained Further

The right to a grand jury:
- For crimes where an individual is facing more than one year of imprisonment or the death penalty when a federal crime was committed. A grand jury must be present and decide to indict that individual before a trial can proceed. These juries decide whether enough evidence has been presented for a trial to proceed.
Who makes up a grand jury?
- The grand jury is made up of 16-23 citizens who are selected at random. These citizens are chosen mainly from voter registration lists, but can be pulled from other sources that indicate prospective jurors.
What does it mean to indict someone?
- An indictment is a formally written accusation issued by a grand jury. Once you receive an indictment, this means you are now charged with a crime, and your case will move forward to a trial.
Protection against double jeopardy:
- Double jeopardy is a phenomenon that protects citizens from being tried twice for the same crime.
  - Why is this significant?
    - Prevents the government from prosecuting an individual repeatedly for malicious intentions. (To wear them down or increase the chance of changing the conviction.)
    - Ensures the verdict is final.
    - Protects and prevents an individual from being punished multiple times for the same crime by the same authority.
    - Limits prosecution to a point; if a person breaks both state and federal laws, they then face the possibility of being tried for the same crime in state and federal court. This is called Dual Sovereignty, and because of this, a person can be punished by the state and federal courts without their rights being violated.
The right against self-incrimination:
- The court cannot force individuals to testify against themselves.
The right to due process of law:
- The government must abide by fair legal procedures before taking a person’s life, freedom, or property.
Protection against the taking of property by the government without compensation:
- If or when the government decides to take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner of that land.

Formative Cases for the Fifth Amendment

Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Established that suspects must be informed of their rights before questioning.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona for kidnapping and rape. During a two-hour-long interrogation. Miranda confessed but was not informed of his right to remain silent or of his right to have a lawyer.
The Arizona Supreme Court received an appeal, but the court disagreed and upheld the conviction. The court believed the confession was voluntary.
An appeal was made to the U.S Supreme Court based on the argument that Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated.
The U.S Supreme Court ruled in Miranda’s favor in a 5-4 decision.

New York v. Quarles (1984): Created the “public safety expectation” to the Miranda Rule

A woman in New York City informed police that she had been raped and that the suspect had fled into a nearby supermarket with a gun.
After being found and asked where his gun was located, Officer Qualres showed police the location of the weapon without first being given his Miranda rights.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, concluded that Officer Quales’s rights were not violated because the question was asked to protect public safety.

Challenges Involving the 5th Amendment

Concerns regarding technology and individual protections are a rising issue within the government, forcing policymakers to acknowledge the changes our society will face.
Juries may consider pleading the fifth as an admission of guilt, further impacting a trial.
Invoking the Fifth Amendment can interfere with certain processes, such as cross-examinations.
Finding a balance between effectively investigating while avoiding actions that could make a person feel pressure to incriminate themselves.
Misunderstanding the scope of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment prevents individuals from being compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them.

Conclusion

The creation of the Fifth Amendment ended the practice of forced confessions and judicial intimidation. Two methods that were common at the time our founders. Now, the responsibility of proving guilt falls to the government. This change has ensured all individuals have these rights regardless of class, gender, or race.

Note: Political Awareness never authorizes its published communication on behalf of any candidate or their committees.