The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its Clauses - Research Paper Example

The Fifth Amendment; U.S Constitution & its Different Clauses Institutional Affiliation The Bill of rights that comprises the first of the ten US constitution amendments provides certain basic personal freedoms. Laws approved by elected officials that violate these freedoms are invalidated as unconstitutional by the judiciary. The U.S. constitution’s Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791, and it contains five different liberties that the framers tried to protect from the whims of the majoritarian. The liberties include (1) The right to be prosecuted by unbiased Grand Jury prior to being prosecuted for a federal criminal act, (2) the right not to be subjected against multiple prosecutions or punishments for a single alleged criminal offense. Others are, (3) the right not to speak when arraigned in court for a criminal offense, (4) the right safeguarding personal freedoms the by due process of law, (5) the right to be compensated justly when the Federal government acquires your private property for public interest (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). The amendment states that, “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 of 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 offence 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.” (Smith, 2008). This paper examines in detail the amendment and its different clauses. Double Jeopardy Clause The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents federal governments and states from prosecuting an already convicted or acquitted defendant for the same case. Further, the clause prohibits the federal governments and states from enforcing more than one punishment for the same violation. The objective of this clause is to safeguard individuals against harassment through several trials for the same offense, to emphasize the significance of an acquittal and to prevent the government from inflicting financial, psychological and emotional troubles that would follow multiple prosecutions for the same alleged act. Further the clause aims at preventing the government from employing it numerous resources to wear down and fallaciously convict innocent people and also eliminating the judicial power to enforce multiple punishments not sanctioned by the legislature (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). The courts interpret the Double Jeopardy Clause as achieving these objectives by providing three different rights. These rights include Assurance that a respondent will not be subjected to a second trial after acquittal, assurance that the respondent will not be subjected to a second prosecution after conviction and finally assurance that a respondent will not receive more than one punishment for the same alleged offense (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). However, the Judiciary does not interpret the Double Jeopardy Clause as barring the state from seeking assessment of a sentence or limiting the length of a sentence on rehearing of the case following successful appeal by the defendant. Jeopardy denotes the danger of being convicted. Therefore, jeopardy doesnt hold unless there is a risk of determination of guiltiness. If for some reason the trial court declares a mistrial, jeopardy will not attach if the effect of the mistrial is minimal delay of the case and does not give the government additional opportunity to build up its case (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). Self-Incrimination Clause This clause provides an individual with the right to refuse to reveal any information that could be adversely used on him in a criminal trial. The objective of this clause is to bar the government from using force, coercion or deception to compel a confession or to extract information from crime suspects. This clause applies to both state and federal government legal proceeding whether they are criminal, civil, judicial or administrative in nature. This clause is often invoked during the trial stage of legal proceedings where individuals are put under oath and examined on the witness stand (Dershowitz, 2008). The clause is also applied during the pretrial stage of legal proceedings. During this stage in criminal cases, the clause is often asserted in reply to pointed questions that are asked by prosecutors, law enforcement agents and other government officers who seek to determine the person responsible for a particular criminal offence. During the pretrial stage in cases of a civil nature, parties to the case assert their right against self-incrimination when likely damaging questions are directed to them in the course of interrogation (Dershowitz, 2008). The right against self-accusation was derived from a popular case in England where one Liburne, an aggressive puritan was tortured for refusing to take an oath that required him to answer any questions asked of him honestly. He refused to take the oath and asserted that he could not accuse himself. Later, the parliament declared his punishment a violation of the law and eventually recognized the right against self-incrimination (Dershowitz, 2008). In the popular Miranda V. Arizona court ruling, the court of Supreme extended the Fifth Amendment protections to include any situation outside the courtroom that entails the restriction of personal liberty.384 U.S.436 (1966). In this respect, the law enforcers are always required to make a suspect aware of all rights when being taken into custody. The rights are known as Miranda rights. Miranda rights include the right to refuse to talk, the right to have access to a lawyer before being questioned by the law enforcers, the right having a lawyer present while questioning. Others are the right to have a government-appointed lawyer if the suspect does not have the capacity to get one, the right for the suspect to be informed that the statements they make can & will be applied against them in the in the prosecution. Miranda rights are not provided in the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, the courts have ruled that they make a vital part of a judiciary created a buffer zone that is important to safeguard rights that are particularly provided for in the Constitution (Dershowitz, 2008). If the law enforcers do not honor these protections, the courts will usually suppress any testimonials by the suspect as a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s safeguard against self- incrimination, so long as the suspect has not actually waived his protection rights. An actual waiver occurs where a suspect knowingly, intelligently and freely made the waiver. To conclude if a waiver met the criteria mentioned, the courts would assess in totality the circumstances and events under which the suspects made the statements. If a suspect spontaneously makes a statement while in custody before being made aware of their Miranda rights, the statement can be used against the suspect so long as the statement was not prompted by police interrogation (Dershowitz, 2008). Due Process Clause The Due process clause comprises two aspects, substantive and procedural. Procedural due process focuses on the procedure by which legal proceedings are led. It requires that all individuals who will be materially affected by the legal proceeding be issued with a notice of its time, venue and subject matter so that they will have sufficient opportunity for preparation. It also requires that legal proceedings be carried out in a fair manner by an unbiased judge who will permit the concerned parties fully to present their complaints, and defenses (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). The due process clause applies to administrative, criminal, and civil proceedings from the pretrial phase through the final appeal, and proceedings that produce arbitrary results will be suppressed as a violation of the constitution (Smith, 2008). Substantive process focuses on the content of particular laws applied during legal proceedings. It is concerned with the protection of those rights that are so important as to be implicit in the ordered liberty concept. Before the World War II, the U.S Supreme Court used substantive due process to suppress legislation that violated various property interests, such as the rights of employers to fix the remunerations and the number of working hours for their employees. Ever since World War II, the court has used substantive due process to protect confidentiality and independence interests of adults, including the right to have an abortion and the right to use contraception. There is no clear difference between procedure and substance. For example, the procedural due process assures criminal accused the right of a fair trial and substantive due process stipulates that twelve jurors must agree unanimously before imposition of the death penalty (Smith, 2008). Just Compensation Clause/Eminent Domain Clause The constitution allows the government taking private property for the interest of the public. The law calls this a taking. The just compensation clause allows the government acquires personal property, so long as the owner is justly compensated. Just compensation is interpreted to mean the amount equivalent to market fair values of the taken property. The United States Supreme Court defines fair market value as the most likely price that a willing and unforced buyer, with full knowledge about the products good and bad features, would pay (Treanor, 1998) Eminent domain power was first recognized in 1215 in England. Magna Charter, in article 39 stated that no freeman should be deprived of his property unless there is lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. During this period, owners were not compensated when the government took their property for public interest. Rather, the English Law simply required that the government acquires ownership of the private property through legal channels such as legislation by parliament. This principle reigned in England for centuries and was later adopted by the colonies of America. However, there was concern about abuse of imminent domain. The Fifth Amendment was made in the context of this imminent domain (Treanor, 1998). During the 20th century, the United States Supreme Court has widened the protection against uncompensated federal governments and States takings of personal property. The clause is interpreted to safeguard not only persons whose property is physically acquired by the government, but also individuals whose value of the property is lowered as a result of government activities. Therefore, takings that should be compensated under the Fifth Amendment result from zoning rules that deny the owners of property economically feasible use of their lands, environmental regulations that mandates the government to acquire an individuals land for the purpose of monitoring groundwater wells as explained in the case (HendlerV. United States), land use rules that inhibit mining activities (Pennsylvania Coal Co.VMahon, 1992) and government airports that reduce property values in the neighborhoods( United States V.Causby, 1946). The Fifth Amendment tries to balance the needs of the public and the owner’s property rights (Treanor, 1998). Grand Jury Clause Grand juries have existed for centuries. The concept originated from Britain. Grand jury originally served to safeguard innocent persons from overly- zealous trials that were politically and religiously instigated. The congress has made statues that explain the means by which to impanel a grand jury. Usually the jurors for the grand jury are chosen from a team of potential jurors having capacity to serve on a particular day in any juror capacity. The persons selected as jurors must have attained the age of the majority, must not be convicts of certain crimes and should not be biased towards the defendant on the accused (Doyle, 1991). At common law, a grand jury comprises f 12 to 23 members. Since grand jury is a derivative of the Common Law, courts use common law to interpret the grand jury clause. Legislatures can fix the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere between 12 and 23 as required by the common law. However, statutes that set the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. The federal law has fixed the number of jurors in a grand jury as between 16 and 23. A person accused of a crime requiring a grand jury is entitled to the right to challenge the jurors in a grand jury for bias or partiality. In the case of a challenge to the grand juror, it is compulsory for the accusor to establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the burden of proof that is similar to that which would be required in the establishment of any other fact. The objectivity of grand juries is very important. This significantly explains the reason legal proceedings are held in secrecy. Public inquiry and other detrimental influences could affect the juries’ decision making. Although grand juries must be objective, there is no constitutional right for the defendants to present evidence on their own or to probe witnesses, and hearsay evidence may be presented against them (Doyle, 1991). Grand juries have broad authority to carry out investigations on suspected crimes. However, they may not hire persons who are not employed by the government to find testimonies or documents required in a prosecution. The grand jury can make a presentment. In the course of the presentment, the grand jury notifies the court that they have reasonable suspicion that the accused person was involved in a crime. (Doyle, 1991) References Dershowitz, A. (2008). Is there a right to remain silent? (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doyle, C. (1991). The Federal grand jury (1st ed.). [Washington, D.C.]: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Law.cornell.edu, (2014). Fifth Amendment. Retrieved 14 September 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment Smith, R. (2008). Fifth Amendment (1st ed.). Edina, MN: ABDO Pub. Co. Treanor, W. (1998). The original understanding of the Takings Clause (1st ed.). [Washington, D.C.]: Georgetown University. Read More