TheFifth Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. is one of theimportant principles in the Bill of Rights because it helps inprotecting individuals against manipulation of government power. TheAmendment obliges that individuals should become tried only whenthere is a charge by a grand jury. Also, the Amendment offersdifferent trial shields, including to be prosecuted just once in acourt for the same wrongdoing as well as the right againstself-incrimination. Furthermore, the Amendment comprises of a DueProcess Clause and an implied equal protection requirement (Brezina46).
Grandjuries, which have the responsibility of returning an indictment inmost criminal cases, comprise of several juries and usually work inclosed negotiation arrangements. These juries are provided withdefinite instructions concerning the decree by the arbiter. Duringhearings, individuals forfeit the right of having their attorneysattend their summons in the room where a grand jury is conducting aninquiry (Brezina 48). However, individuals may have the choice incase they are being questioned by the crime squad in custody.Moreover, it is feasible for people to come out of the grand jurychamber to have a consultation with attorneys outside the apartmentprior to coming back to offer responses to the questions asked by thegrand jury. The national law allows the hearing of violations withouthaving arraignments. Furthermore, in hearings of small crimes, thetrial may continue without prosecutions when a person waives his/herFifth Amendment right. The summons by the grand jury may becomeadjusted by the tribunal only in restricted situations. In ExParte Bain,the Supreme Court ruled that an indictment cannot be charged by thetribunal. However, in the UnitedStates v. Miller,there was a reversal of ExParte Bainwhere it was held that the scope of an indictment can be narrowed bythe prosecution (Brezina 56). This implies that it is feasible todrop lesser charges and new ones cannot be introduced. The Grand JuryClause fails to protect individuals who work in the militaryregardless of whether they are taking part in a war or they are on apeace-keeping mission. Further, affiliates of the state soldiers whohave been summoned to work with national armies are not guarded toounder this clause. The grand jury impeachment clause has not beenintegrated in the Fourteenth Amendment, which implies that theprovisions of the grand jury can only apply to criminal charges underthe national court system. Although various states usually use grandjuries, defendants do not have a Fifth Amendment right to a grandjury for felonious charges in the state courts. Indeed, states havethe freedom of abolishing grand juries, and most of them have changedthem with primary trials (Brezina 58).
TheFifth Amendment guards people against being coerced to convictthemselves. Pleading the Fifth is seen to imply that individuals candecline to respond to any queries presented because the insinuationof the questioning may result in a person to possessing a sensibleperil to be in danger by providing a straightforward answer (Feld38). The permissible shield against self-conviction has been directlyassociated with the query of suffering to obtain information andadmissions. Guard against self-incrimination can be indicated to beinherent to the Mirandarights statement, which shields the right to stay silent. Accordingto Mirandav. Arizona,the case establishes that prior to the introduction of any statementinto evidence the administration should fulfill the heavy weight ofdepicting an understanding and intelligence for a voluntary waiver.The waiver inquiry should be the chief machinery of evaluatingwhether the choice to speak must be made open from pressure. A waivercannot be assumed from the reasoning that a concession needs to beobtained. Prolonged questioning preceding a statement can beconsidered a strong evidence of an invalid waiver. However, petite isnow left of the tenets. Thompkinschanges the issue of evidence of waiver or lessens the load. TheSupreme Court argued that where the trial indicates that Mirandacaution has been offered and that it has been implicit to theaccused, a defendant’s unforced proclamation established aninferred waiver of the right of remaining silent. The rearrangementof waiver into the center of grilling and the revelation of indirectwaiver following hours of questioning reshape the waiver principle.In the case involving NorthCarolina v. Butler,the offender agreed to communicate with police but drew back fromauthorizing a written form. The court made a decision that a waivercan be supposed from actions and conversations.
TheFifth Amendment freedom against unavoidable self-incrimination can beapplied when a person is summoned to attest in an authorizedarrangement. According to the Supreme Court ruling, the opportunitytakes effect whether the onlooker is in a national court, or in theintegrated principle of the Fourteenth Amendment, whether the hearingis felonious or civil, as well as whether it is in a state court. Theright of remaining silent became asserted at congressional trials inthe 1950s when individuals who testified before the House Committeeon the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee requested the right torespond to the queries involving their alleged membership in theCommunist Party. The freedom against self-incrimination fails to beconsidered when a person attests before a Self-regulatoryOrganization (SRO) this is because an SRO is not considered as acourt of law and does not have the ability to send an individual tojail. For instance, in a court ruling in Marchianov. NASD,SROs such as the NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers)were basically not considered as state actors. The Fifth Amendmentrestricts the utilization of evidence received unlawfully by policeofficers. Initially, at common law, a confession received by anguishwas acceptable (Easton 76). Nevertheless, coerced confessions laterbecame inadmissible. The Supreme Court has continually overriddenconvictions that are grounded on these concessions for example,cases such as Brownv. Mississippi.The Supreme Court has held different decisions concerning theadmissibility of confessions in various cases. In Hiibelv. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,the court argued that the Fourteenth, Fifth, as well as FourthAmendments, do not offer individuals the right to rubbish to providetheir names when queried by police where a law enforcer stops andidentifies rules that obligate revelation of such information. Inanother case involving Berghuisv. Thompkins,the Supreme Court held that felonious suspects must unmistakablyappeal their right of remaining silent (Easton 78). It is unless thesuspects indicate that they depend on the right, their informationcan be utilized in court and police officers can stay questioningthem. The act of remaining silent by its own is inadequate to implythat a suspect has appealed his/her right.
Videotapinghas influenced the manner in which trials can be taken. By policeofficers relying on videotaping, there is a high probability ofmaking wrongful convictions. One of the positive sides of recordingstatements by police force from accused individuals throughvideotaping is that it is possible to protect minors, especiallybecause of their submissiveness to authority, which may compel them,to tell the truth (Feld 48). It is through this truthful confessionthat minors who have been wrongly convicted can be defended. However,the use of videotaping by police officers is challenging because itis costly. The use of videotaping would require the installation ofvideo cameras in the interrogation rooms. Also, more interrogationrooms would be required, and they would need to be reconfigured so asto accommodate video recording (Easton 84). False confessions emergeas an issue that may come with videotaping because there areinstances where accused individuals may provide untrue informationsince they may fear to go through torture due to the length thatinterrogations may take. Therefore, for the videotaping to besuccessful and avoid false confessions, there is a need for lawenforcers to use tools such as lie detectors a move that can bedeemed to be expensive.
Inconclusion, from the discussion, it is apparent that the FifthAmendment requires that felonies should become tried only when thereis an arraignment by a grand jury. Also, the Amendment offersdifferent trial shields, including being prosecuted just once in anational court for an unchanged offense as well as the right againstself-conviction. The Fifth Amendment restricts the utilization ofproof received unlawfully by law enforcement officers. The use ofvideotaping by law enforcement officers is challenging because it iscostly.
Brezina,Corona. TheFifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, and Due Processof Law.New York: Rosen Central, 2011. Print.
Easton,Susan M. Silenceand Confessions: The Suspect As the Source of Evidence.Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.
Feld,Barry C. Kids,Cops, and Confessions: Inside the Interrogation Room.New York: New York University Press, 2014. Print.