Bill of Rights - Fifth Amendment Rights

What does the Fifth Amendment say exactly?

Here is the exact wording of the Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, 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.”

Let’s breakdown segment one of the Fifth Amendment

Segment one of the Fifth Amendment contains quite a bit of information, but is pretty cut and dry in how it breaks down.  The first segment reads:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, 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…”

This means that people can only be held for capital offenses and other infamous crimes on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.  It makes the exception of cases involving the military or militias when performing officially during times of war or public danger.  What happened to the requirement of Grand Jury presentation of indictment.  It seems our legal system has ventured away from the requirements of the Fifth Amendment.  The military and militias were specifically exempted, due to the need for them often to act quickly during times of combat and heightened tensions.

The second segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”

Suspects of a crime cannot be put in jeopardy of life or limb if a subject is tried of the same crime twice.  Our current judicial systems interprets this to mean a suspect cannot be tried for the same crime twice.  That is not what this segment says.  It says the subject cannot be sentenced to loss of life or limb if tried a second time for the same offense.  We are granting criminal that do not get convicted during their trial the right not to be tried again under what we call double jeopardy.

That was not the intent of this segment of the Fifth Amendment.  It protects suspects from the possibility of being tried twice for the same crime with capital punishment hanging over their head on both occasions.  Many courts in Europe would try offenders over many times until they finally got the death penalty conviction they were looking for and then put them to death.  Our founding fathers were attempting to prevent this practice from being used in the US Court systems.  Not to prevent a serial killer from being tried multiple times for the same offense in order to give them life in prison to remove them from society.

The third segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…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…”

This segment of the Fifth Amendment simply says any accused persons have the right not to bear witness against themselves and cannot be forced to do so.  Nor can they be mistreated by depriving them their life, liberty or property until authorized through due process of law.

The last segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

I am assuming, since the entire Fifth Amendment is talking about an accused rights, the last segment is still talking about the same.  With this in mind, this segment simply says property cannot be taken from an accused person for public use without paying them or their estate what the property is worth.  Why did our Founding Fathers specify public use (presently called eminent domain) in this segment?  Does that mean, if the property is taken from the accused, but used privately, the accused does not receive compensation?  Or was it understood property could not be taken for private use?

Now let’s put this all together:

People can only be held for capital offenses and other infamous crimes on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury except cases involving the military or militias when performing officially during times of war or public danger.  Suspects of a crime cannot be put in jeopardy of life or limb if a subject is tried for the same crime twice.  Any accused persons have the right not to bear witness against themselves and cannot be forced to do so.  Nor can they be mistreated by depriving them their life, liberty or property until authorized through due process of law.  Property cannot be taken from an accused person for public use without paying them or their estate what the property is worth.

Where did Fifth Amendment Miranda warnings come from?

In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona the US Supreme Court found that Ernesto Arturo Miranda’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated during police contact and processing of the case.  So the Supreme Court decided to mandate rights advisement prior to questioning of any individual suspected of committing a crime.  Advisement was to consist of both Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights and the court listed them as:

“…The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.”

 

That is the Fifth Amendment.  It is rather long, but lists some very necessary things to ensure our citizens rights are not violated.  We do pass our rights of protection under the law on to legal visitors in our country, as we should.   Anyone illegally in our country should always be treated humanely, but we should not give them all the rights our Constitution reserves for us, the US Citizens.  Some even want to pass our rights on to captive terrorists, which I feel is giving them way too much respect especially those that mistreated and even beheaded any of our citizens.