The Right Against Self Incrimination

Better Essays

In today 's culture, people like to assume the worst in any situation whether or not they fully understand what is going on. Something that I see people blindly latch on to is the notion of pleading the 5th makes you guilty. While at the surface this may seem like a valid point, the accusation falls apart the deeper you look. This is why I 'd like to show why pleading the 5th is not an incriminating phrase by giving the history of the 5th amendment, how the Miranda rights came into play, and a case where this theory of automatic guilt was disproven. The right against self-incrimination stems as far back as 17th century England when Puritans refused to cooperate with interrogators while being tortured to expel their religious beliefs. …show more content…

This means that you are able to refuse to answer any sort of questioning if you feel that your answer may hurt you in the case of your prosecution. This is done by clearly stating that you would like to “plead the fifth” or “take the fifth”. Pleading the fifth is a legal right that does not assume anything; however, many people believe that pleading the fifth makes you seem guilty since an innocent person would not have anything to hide. Although, this is an incorrect way of looking at the situation. All our lives we are preached the phrase "guilty by association", but pleading the 5th is the opposite of that. In a court case, if we are guilty by associating with the crime committed, then pleading the 5th is a way for the innocent to step away from the situation as they have nothing to prove. This invaluable statement was not always common knowledge however. In 1966, there was a Supreme Court ruling of a case that changed how the 5th amendment was presented to someone in a position of self-incrimination. This infamous case is Miranda vs. Arizona. Miranda vs. Arizona began in 1963 with Ernesto Miranda

Get Access