Amendment+5+(2)

= __**The 5th 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." = = = = = = = = = = = = =__**Changing Interpretations of the 5th Amendment: **__=

“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Recently this section of the 5th Amendment has been interpreted as Pro-life. Pro-life advocates claim that a fetus cannot be aborted due to a certain interpretation of the 5th Amendment. They claim that aborting a fetus is depriving the baby of it’s fundamental right to life, liberty and property without due process of law. Essentially, the baby is not given a “fair trial” to examine the reasons why it should be aborted. The reasons why it should be killed and the reasons it should live were not weighed against one another, and therefore in is unconstitutional to abort the fetus.

"Double Jeopardy"

Originally Double Jeopardy only extended to cases which threatened “life or limb”, or cases of capital crimes. The Supreme Court redefined this particular part of the amendment to every type of case. The current interpretation is that every person is free from being tried twice for the same crime, regardless of what crime they were suspected of. (ie- capital, misdemeanor, felony, etc.)

=__**Court Cases**__=

In the case of “Blockburger v. United States”, Blockburger was charged with five counts of violating the Harrison Narcotic Act (2, 3, and 5). The appeal said that this case was essential a case of Double Jeopardy and Blockburger should not be tried for more than one offense. In the end however the Supreme Court ruled that each of the violations have an element in which the others do not, so they are separate charges. Double Jeopardy was not violated because charges were different.
 * Blockburger v. United States 1932 **

In the case of “Ashcraft v. Tennessee”, Ashcraft was found guilty for the murder of his wife after he confessed. He was however questioned for thirty-six hours straight without a break. He claimed this violated his rights, and thus making his confession inadmissible. The final verdict was that this did not violate fifth amendment rights.
 * Ashcraft v. Tennessee **

In the “Marbury v. Madison” case Madison won because of the fact the Supreme Court thought what Marbury was demanding was too unconstitutional. The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court. Marbury filed writ of Mardamu demanding secretary of State and James Madison delivered the appointments.
 * Marbury v. Madison 1803 **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In this case, officers arrested 40 black men for the murder of a white man. The men were not informed about their self-incrimination clause (the right to remain silent). They were beaten for about a week until 4 men confessed to the murder. The Supreme Court ruled that ohsical tourture is not the only condition that could make a confession unreliable and inadmissible in the court. The judge threw out the case.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Chambers v. Florida 1940 **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This case's verdict held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations didn’t violate the 4th amendment. There was reason to suspect Hiibel was guilty of a crime, so officers randomly asked for ID, Hiibel requested that it violated his 4th amendment rights and 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. The court held that ID requirement didn’t violate the 5th amendment because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him. However, the court and the verdict left open the possibility that 5th amendment privilege might apply in a situation in which there was reasonable belief that giving ID could be incriminating.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada 2004 **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This famous case established that statements made in response to interrogation of a defendant in police custody will only be allowed to be used as evidence during a trial if the prosecution can prove that the defendant was informed of his rights prior to the interrogation. He must also understand his rights and accept them. As a result of the Miranda decision, police are now required to inform arrested persons of their rights, known as “Miranda Rights”, or a “Miranda Warning”. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">These rights are often depicted in movies and on TV shows such as "Cops" where the officer states "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law... etc."
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Miranda v. Arizona 1966 **


 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">__Impact on Today (examples)__ **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The following are examples of how the 5th Amendment impacts your everyday life:

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">1- When one are arrested or taken in by a police officer, they are read a list of rights known as “Miranda Rights”, informing the person in custody about their rights in the court of law, as well as what may be used against them for the prosecution. The reading of these rights to a criminal is a direct result of the Miranda v Arizona Supreme Court Case, which changed the interpretation of the 5th Amendment.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">2- Double Jeopardy protects citizens from being tried multiple times for the same crime. Originally this was thought to apply to every situation, but in today’s world, the Supreme Court interprets Double Jeopardy to mean that you will not be tried twice on the same facts or evidence, but you may be subject to retrial if new evidence arises and the prosecution can bring a new case against you.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">3- In previous years, mainly in the early-to-mid 1900’s, torture and beatings was a method employed by the government and the police in order to coax suspects in to confessing. In 1940 it was ruled that confessions that result from torture and beatings are unreliable and can’t be used as evidence in a court case. In today’s world, this almost completely ensures that one will not be beaten, because there is no logical reason to if the confession as a result can’t be used in court.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">4- In the Supreme Court case Ashcraft v. Tennessee, Ashcraft confessed to murder, and the prosecution used this against him in court. Ashcraft argued that they shouldn’t be allowed to use his confession because it was a result of a 36-hour interrogation, with no breaks. The court upheld the State of Tennessee’s ruling and said that the confession was “fair game” for the trial. As a result of this case, there is no limit to how long the police can interrogate you, which greatly impacts the likelihood of a confession due to interrogation.


 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">__Impact on the Future (examples)__ **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">We obviously know how the 5th Amendment effects our daily lives in 2011, but how will it effect us in the future?

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">1- The complete elimination of torture and “strange” interrogation methods will most likely result in the future due to the ruling in Chambers v. Florida, which held that confessions due to torture are not viable evidence in court. Torture may be completely eliminated as a result because if the confession isn’t usable in court, why torture your suspect? The Fifth Amendment has led to more and more criminal rights, which will in turn lead to more human rights, such as the elimination of the practice of torture.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">2- One of the predominant reasons that suspects confess is because they are under pressure from the officers. What this means is that suspects are often treated harshly and are thus coaxed into confessing. Although this isn't a form of torture, the decision in "Chambers v Florida 1940" may be extended so that suspects are treated fairly and are not "scared" into confessing by the law enforcement.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">3- Interrogation techniques that involve excessive questioning without any real breaks is allowed. This was shown in the case of “Ashcraft v. Tennessee” where police questioned a suspect for 36 hours straight. The courts decided that although unorthodox, the confession acquired was admissible. This will allow police to interrogate suspects for hours on end to gain a confession as long as no violent force is used. This will make more confessions even though some may be given up just to be gotten out of questioning. There are positive and negative recursions from this being allowed. This may lead to the addition of a law in which no person may be questioned for more than a set amount of hours without a break as to not falsely incriminate innocents.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">4- Recently there has been alot of argument over airport frisks and invasion of passengers privacy. If things continue on the same path they are on now, and airplane terrorism continues to be held in check, one could probably expect to see the 5th Amendment change so that it's interpretation covers frisks and privacy invasion. Due process will probably be extended to protect items from being confiscated without valid reasons. This will then, most likely, be extended to the person themselves, and the airport security will not be allowed to frisk certain persons, such as children, without valid reason.

=<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">**__Works Cited__** =

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Amendment's, America's Founding Fathers as the 5th. "5th Amendment." Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/5th-amendment.html>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/5th-amendment.html__]

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada__]

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"Ashcraft v. Tennessee | Casebriefs." Law Cases & Case Briefs for Students. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/ashcraft-v-tennessee/>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/ashcraft-v-tennessee/__]

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">White, ron. "Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona__]

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment." FindLaw: Cases and Codes. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/__]

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"fifth amendment legal definition of fifth amendment. fifth amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.." Legal Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fifth+amendment>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fifth+amendment__]

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Head, Tom. "Fifth Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the Fifth Amendment." Civil Liberties at About.com - Your Guide to Civil Liberties News and Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/5th_amendment.htm>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/5th_amendment.htm__]