The Bill Of Rights In Action Essay — страница 6

  • Просмотров 407
  • Скачиваний 4
  • Размер файла 28
    Кб

over to that person. The next clause of the Fifth Amendment states that, “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself… This means that no individual can be made to testify against himself in any criminal case or give any type of information about him that might serve to incriminate him. This right originated in England, where people were being forced to testify against themselves. After 1611, if anyone refused to take an oath requiring them to answer all questions truthfully without knowing why they were asked or the charges against them, he could be found in contempt of court and sent to prison until he agreed to swear the oath and answer the questions. This act not only violated the sanctity of conscience and the teachings of Jesus, but

also presented people with an excruciating choice of facing eternal damnation or execution. In 1637, a man was imprisoned for shipping seditious books into England, and refused to take the oath before the Star Chamber. “I was condemned,” he later wrote, “because I would not accuse myself.” This brought about the recognition of the right of self-incrimination. I believe that this right is necessary. According to the US justice system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. This is a right and advantage in our society that must be upheld; people should be able to protect themselves from the law. This clause has been widely identified with the phrase “taking the 5th” used by witnesses testifying before congressional investigating committees or judicial bodies.

Although its one of the best known of the Bill of Rights amendments, it is also one of the least popular. It is often viewed as a shield for the guilty, rather than a shield for the innocent, since an innocent person should have nothing to hide. This provision proves that the Bill of Rights does not always by the will of popular demand, but it tries to advocate just and reasonable practices as best as it can. People sometimes highlight that this clause may also protect innocent people who find themselves in incriminating circumstances, such as “Fifth Amendment Communists.” Perhaps the most famous case concerning the Fifth Amendment is Miranda vs. Arizona. In this case the court was asked to decide whether or not incommunicado interrogation of suspects by police infringed upon

the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In their ruling the court stated that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards. The court also specifically outlined the criteria that should be included in police warnings to suspects that included the right to remain silent and the right to have legal counsel present during questioning. These rights have come to be known as “Miranda Rights” over the years and they have been extremely important in law today. The next part of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government

acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. It also essentially guarantees that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. This provision differs from other facets of the Bill of Rights. Unlike other freedoms that are concerned with the substance and scope of the protection, the due process cause focuses on the actual procedure itself. The concept of due process originated in English common law. The rule that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates written constitutions and was widely accepted in England. The Magna Charta is an early example of a constitutional guarantee of due process. That document includes a clause that declares, “No free man shall be seized, or

imprisoned . . . except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land” This concept of the law of the land was later transformed into the phrase “due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment also provides that private property shall not be taken without just compensation. The government’s right to take private land for public use is known as the power of eminent domain. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding exactly how much compensation is just and determining whether the property has been taken for public use. Public benefit must be clear and significant. As a result, in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, The courts ruled that giving land to General Motors most certainly constituted public use , as it would provide some 6,000 new jobs and