Writing Assignment 5: Self Incrimination During A Criminal Case

Alito, delivered the final vote of 5-4, majority vote at expense for the case of Salinas V. Texas on June 17, 2013. The SCOTUS decided that Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination are not reprehensible to defendants who chose to only remain mute during questioning, or a portion of questioning. SCOTUS states, “Long-standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim this protection” (Justice Alito, Oyez). The SCOTUS later goes on to say, “the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that a criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves” (Justice Kennedy, Oyez). Therefore, If police officers read Salinas his rights at any point during conviction, questioning, or trial, there was no constitutional

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

The Fifth Amendment is the right for an individual to remain silent when asked a question that could potentially

The Fifth amendment was made, in 1791. to make sure that no one could be tried for the same reason more than once. This was important to include it in the declaration of independence to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to influence the people’s rights to life, liberty, and property. In the Chambers vs Florida case, men were accused of a murder because of their skin color and were proved innocent and this was considered violated do to the fifth amendment. In another case called Ashcraft v. Tennessee, had included a man who was a suspect of the tennessee police and was then forced to a false confession by them, in an interrogation, which violated his wright given by the fifth amendment. In a similar case called Miranda v. Arizona, a man was sent to an interrogation and was not notified of his rights with a warning, which violates the

The Fifth Amendment reads, in part, "No person 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...." The Fourth and Fifth Amendments provide the foundation for the rights that protect all U.S. citizens from intrusive law enforcement practices.

Our rights as given to us by the Constitution of United States of America are important to ensure our protection from government. Everyone has equal rights and protection and cannot lose these rights. One of these rights is the Fifth Amendment that protects all U.S. citizens against self-incrimination, or causing oneself to be deemed guilty of a crime. Understanding this right can help prevent the government from abusing our rights. In the case of the Central Park jogger, these young men lives were changed forever for simply not understanding or given warning that they are guaranteed rights to protect

Fifth amendment states that the person is innocent until proven guilty; which, have prevented many false accusations. The suspect cannot be tried without looking into the accusations. Also the suspect cannot be self-incriminated by the court or be re-tried for the same accusation.

The 5th Amendment Basically, states that no one shall be charged with capital crimes without a Grand Jury's permission, except in cases regarding the military while under service in wartime or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime. You can't be forced to testify yourself. That no one should be

The Fifth Amendment as it pertains to confessions, states that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves. The Fifth Amendment was created to protect individuals against self-incrimination, and any confession obtained when it is in violation of the Amendment will be inadmissible in court. The case Miranda v. Arizona involves Ernesto Miranda who was arrested based on evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape. Miranda signed a confession to the rape, but he was never told his right to counsel, his right to remain silent, and that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented the confession form. His lawyer argued that the

The Fifth Amendment saves very much time. Usually when a person is held captive for committing crime they do not want to admit it at all so it takes a long time to find evidence. “Providing chiefly that no person be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case” (fifth amendment, Inc.). It says that no one has to be forced to tell it was them who had committed the crime and and if they do this then they do not have to go through a huge process and saves so much time. “In general, you can assert your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in any circumstance in which you are being questioned by a government official and when what you say can be used as evidence against you in a criminal matter.”(Gilley, When Do You Waive That Right?). One can Plead the Fifth” whenever that person does not want to answer the question asking if you committed crime. The court does not have to get that person to tell the truth if they plead the Fifth but just like any criminal they do not want to tell the truth which takes a long and hard process to get evidence and ask others such as family members and sometimes they also lie. By that time the investigators have to do everything on their own and get as much evidence as they can. On the other hand some people may say that the person just either tell the truth or lie so then the investigators can at least prove that the person is a criminal. So by either just telling the truth and

Leading on, you are not a criminal if there is no proof given. It is common to were when being guilted for doing something and knowing it did occur but claiming there is no evidence you have the right to prevent this from occurring. “The fifth amendment makes it harder for the government to actually convict of crimes” (What Is the Importance and Significance of the Fifth Amendment?). When being accused but were not actually guilty for it and there is no proof at all, there is no right for anyone, the government to put you as a criminal, which will benefits some in a good way because the crime could not be the most serious topic. There are cases that have occurred this year where they have pleaded the fifth like, Michael Flynn. Some argue that the fifth amendment is not the best because it's having criminals be free .“Why is it a good policy to give criminal defendants a Fifth Amendment right to silence in their own trial, as opposed to giving them the same rights and obligations as third-party witnesses”(Bennett Haselton Questioning the Fifth Amendment), is being asked. Giving criminals a defendant can help if it is not a major event that occurred but again, if the crime was to be huge or even life threatening to other then it is more likely that there will be a high amount of evidence to proof that they are guilty and the person will be more committed to what they have done and take the

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

Amendment V guarantees that a person cannot be forced to or be put into the position to incriminate himself, makes it so that a person cannot be tried twice for the same case, or if anything is taken from a person, it is not without “just compensation.” The Fifth Amendment gives people the right to remain silent, as to not accidentally incriminate themselves. It is only fair that the defendant is allowed to say however much, or little he or she wants. The Fifth Amendment also protects people who have been found innocent, and if new evidence surfaces after the trial that would incriminate the defendant, the double jeopardy rule, which says “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” makes it so that they cannot be brought back to trial. Finally the Fifth Amendment compensates people who have had personal property taken or destroyed by the government. The rights given to a citizen of the United States by the Fifth Amendment are only fair, and they are still important to this day.

The due process and crime control models, both created by Stanford University law professor Herbert Packer, represents two opposing method of principles functioning within criminal justice system. Although the models describe the important facets of the politics and practice of criminal justice, both have been criticized since presented by Packer in 1964. Presently both models are acknowledged as imperfect standards to explain the politics and law of criminal justice. The crime control ideal represents traditional principles, whereas the due process belief reflects moderate values; therefore generating conflict evident throughout the years. This paper discusses models, crime control and due process, and how each affects the criminal

The specific aims and purposes of criminal law is to punish criminals, and prevent people from becoming future criminals by using deterrence. “Having a criminal justice system that imposes liability and punishment for violations deter.” (Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley, Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation, Oxford Journal of Legal studies, volume 24, No. 2 (2004), pp. 173-205). Criminal law