Wednesday, December 14, 2011
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.
The fifth amendment is one of the most familiar of all Constitutional amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to incriminate themselves during the course of a criminal investigation (right to remain silent), guarantees the right to due process (trial by jury of your peers), protects citizens against "double jeopardy" (being tried twice for the same crime), and protects the property of citizens from seizure by the government (local, state, or federal) for public use without fair and proper payment (they can't take your house in order to build a new highway without paying you a "fair price" for it).
One instance where the protections of the fifth amendment were used to circumvent existing laws is the case of Miles Edward Haynes v. United States. During this case, Haynes, a convicted felon, was found in possession of an unregistered firearm, a violation of the the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required the registration of certain firearms. Haynes contended in a Supreme Court appeal, that as a convicted felon, the requirement to register a firearm (which he cannot own as a felon) was essentially forcing Haynes to "incriminate himself" by the admission of firearm ownership. The Supreme Court agreed.
I do not believe this was the intent of the founders when this amendment was drafted. It does however, reflect the ways that our Constitution can be interpreted to suit the needs of the citizens, which, in most cases, is a good and intended notion. The flexibility of this document allows for societal changes, which our founders foresaw. However, the misuse of this flexibility, in the instance of Haynes, has a negative impact on those who seek to use the Constitution in a "law-abiding" manner, rather than the furtherance of criminal activities.
The fifth amendment is one of the most familiar of all Constitutional amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to incriminate themselves during the course of a criminal investigation (right to remain silent), guarantees the right to due process (trial by jury of your peers), protects citizens against "double jeopardy" (being tried twice for the same crime), and protects the property of citizens from seizure by the government (local, state, or federal) for public use without fair and proper payment (they can't take your house in order to build a new highway without paying you a "fair price" for it).
One instance where the protections of the fifth amendment were used to circumvent existing laws is the case of Miles Edward Haynes v. United States. During this case, Haynes, a convicted felon, was found in possession of an unregistered firearm, a violation of the the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required the registration of certain firearms. Haynes contended in a Supreme Court appeal, that as a convicted felon, the requirement to register a firearm (which he cannot own as a felon) was essentially forcing Haynes to "incriminate himself" by the admission of firearm ownership. The Supreme Court agreed.
I do not believe this was the intent of the founders when this amendment was drafted. It does however, reflect the ways that our Constitution can be interpreted to suit the needs of the citizens, which, in most cases, is a good and intended notion. The flexibility of this document allows for societal changes, which our founders foresaw. However, the misuse of this flexibility, in the instance of Haynes, has a negative impact on those who seek to use the Constitution in a "law-abiding" manner, rather than the furtherance of criminal activities.
0 comments:
Post a Comment