The Pros And Cons Of The Fifth Amendment

The four basic components of the Fifth Amendment include: double jeopardy, due process, the right to be heard by a jury and safeguards against self-incrimination. Double jeopardy is when the individual can only be tried for a crime once. In the event that they are acquitted and new information surfaces, they cannot be retried again for the same crime. Instead, new charges would have to be filed showing the individual violated another area of the law. (Sundahl, 2011)

This Amendment was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and was ratified by the states December 15, 1789. It is a part of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution.

The sixth amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which District shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel or his defence.” ("The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27.") This amendment means that anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to a quick and public trial. The trial of the accused must be held by an unbiased jury in the area where the crime supposedly

The above statement tells that no one can be put on trial for a serious crime, unless a grand jury decide first that there is enough proof or evidence, if there is enough evidence produced then an indictment is issued, which means that the person who is charged with the crime will be put on trial for the crime.

The United States has been well known and notable for its freedom and liberty that it upholds. Matter of fact, some people have even left their native countries to have a better successful life in the U.S. Unfortunately,their own country didn’t offer the opportunities that the U.S offered. Although freedom has been enjoyed for some years now, what if those freedoms were at risk? The Bill of Rights is unstable and could be modified at any moment in time. The 4th amendment is constantly being violated by law enforcement, allowing the amendment more than likely to be changed.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

The Eighth Amendment, ratified in 1791, and it had three clauses. The clauses are Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Excessive Fines, and Excessive bail. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment means that the state and federal government restrict how extreme the punishment is to a person who has done a crime. This clause is made so that the people that are accused are not tortured and killed cruelly. The Excessive Fines restrict the state and federal government the amount of money a person fined for a crime. This clause created was so that the government cannot take a lot of your money away. The Excessive bail means that courts can’t give a tremendous amount of bond to a person who has broken the law. This clause created so that the judge and jury cannot already make their decision before the case even begins. This is why the saying “an accused is presumed innocent until found guilty” is established.

Amendments in the Constitution are giving people, Americans the rights to have freedom and showing that from the Constitution. The rights that we as people have in our lives to speak up, and stand up for what we believe in.“U.S Constitution established Americans national government laws, and guaranteed basic rights for citizens”( The U.S Constitutions). Ten amendments were ratified by the states, there are twenty seven amendments in the constitution of the United States. All Amendments are representing America, for its rights and freedom. Amendments help and benefit Americans, they are a way to represent our freedom and of course the privileges that we are able to have. The Fifth Amendment is a very important one to the

As we grow up, there are certain rights that we develop as people as we age. For example, at the age of 18 we are given the right to vote in elections as well as purchase tobacco if we so choose too. But there are certain rights, given to all citizens of the United States, independent of age, that also can not be taken away. As an example, the 1st amendment allows for the freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition. The 14th amendment gives citizenship to all people who are born or naturalized in the United States. In today’s day in age however, one amendment has become quite controversial, the 4th amendment. This amendment protects people against unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure and that warrants may not be issued unless there is probable cause. What becomes controversial now is whether or not this amendment includes the protection of what a person says or does on the internet as well as what a person says to another well calling another person. The 4th amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In its current phrasing it is vague enough to push the boundaries of what is protected and what isn’t. For this reason it needs to be updated to fit

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) which is followed by the United States Constitution belongs to the part of the Bill of Rights and will protect each and every individual from being compelled to witnesses against themselves in all sorts of criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is a sort of informal term used generally for invoking the right which allows the witnesses to decline the chance of answering the questions which may lead the answers that might incriminate them, and basically it wouldn’t provide any criteria to suffer a penalty to propound the right. This sort of evidentiary privilege makes sure that defendants generally the accused cannot be coercing to become the witnesses at their own trials. If, however, by any chance

or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.

In America’s justice system, a grand jury is a group of citizens called to decide whether probable cause exists to believe that a suspect committed the crime with which she or he has been charged (Gaines G-4). In the Central District of California, prospective jurors who report and are not excused or postponed, the Jury Clerk will use a computer program to randomly select 23 members and ten alternates for each grand jury. A grand jury designated “investigatory” meet for a 12-month term, while a grand jury designated “accusatory” meets for a 6-month term. A grand jury has 23 members and meets once a week, always on the same weekday. Grand juries do not meet on weekends or Mondays. The average workday is 5 hours. Absences for medical appointments, vacations, graduations, etc. may be accommodated, but 16 members must be present for the grand jury to conduct business. The grand jury serves the United States District Court, Central District of California. In contrast, a trial jury is asked to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented during a civil or criminal trial; a grand jury meets in secret to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a formal criminal charge against someone. That formal criminal charge is called an “indictment” (Central).

A Grand Jury consists of 12 to 23 members and since it was derived from common-law, Grand Jury clause is interpreted from common-law itself. Grand Juries giving indictment in any kind of criminal cases formed with a jury of peers and its proceedings are operated in private and closed environment. These Juries are also provided specific instructions regarding any kind of law by the judge. The Grand Juries have other rights like many constitutional restriction and constraints which apply in a court, do not apply during grand jury proceedings. Exclusionary rule is an example which does not apply when specific evidences are presented to a grand jury.

The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Even though this amendment has been around for hundreds of years, people still argue over what it means and if it should still apply today. The two extreme sides of this argument as stated in Henry Winkler’s book are the Gun Nuts and the Gun Grabbers (Winkler 15,45). One side argues that there should not be any guns at all, and the other side argues that everyone should have a gun. This discussion has been around for decades, and I believe that it is not going away anytime soon. There are a few arguments as to why I believe that the government shall not and cannot remove guns from American citizens. First, I believe that I have a constitutional right to own firearms due to the second amendment. Secondly, everyone should not be punished for the actions of a few lawless individuals. Thirdly, the removal of firearms would be costly, hard to enforce and unlikely to succeed, and finally, gun control laws are racially motivated. Through the use of what I believe combined with historical examples, my goal is to persuade a “Gun Grabber” on why the government cannot take away my guns.