The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution According to Tom Head’s Civil Liberties, and the Fifth Amendment, a person cannot be held for questions in a capital crime unless an indictment has been issued by a Grand Jury. The military; however, have their own set of rules for their soldiers. Another right is that no one should be tried for the same crime twice, which is called double jeopardy. Also a defendant cannot be forced to testify against his or himself because he or she may incriminate him or herself. The Fifth Amendment also states the no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Due Process of Law.
A lesson can be learned by looking into double jeopardy, and deciding the fate of these defendants. One can question whether or not an alleged criminal should be tried again if overwhelming evidence is found that would overturn an earlier conviction. One reason in support of double jeopardy is that the prosecutors are allowed more time to gather evidence and then
People have said the system can be too harsh and there are those who have said the system can be too lenient, and that could be the reason why there are so many mixed feelings over the due process and crime control models. In the due process model the main point is to protect all individuals and allow them their constitutional rights and freedoms they are given in the United States, no matter if you’re in this country legally or not. “For the Due Process Model, the “aim of the process is at least as much to protect the factually innocent as it is to convict the factually guilty.”’(Herbert Packer, Criminal Procedure, Ch. 1) The due process model protects people’s rights so it can making officers of the law build a case against the person accused by collecting evidence through warrants, and the person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In due process a criminal case cannot be built against someone unless the proper steps have been met to the courts standards.
Viewed at http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html Bernard, T. J., Vold, G. B., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. L. (2010). Vold's theoretical criminology. New York: Oxford University Press. Brookman, F. (2005).
Running Head: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS The Constitutional Procedures Deborah Llamas Kaplan University CJ500-01N Professor Gordon Crews March 6, 2013 The Fifth Amendment referred to as the Bill of Rights implemented because of the standard method “I Plead the Fifth” (Bill of Rights, 2008). The four basic clauses associated with the Fifth Amendment include, the grand jury clause: that no individual held responsible in justifying a capital, or either heinous crime, unless on a claim or demand by a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury Clause is an essential component because it requires a grand jury in capital cases to prevent a person charged without evidence, determined by a Grand Jury
Australian Institute of Criminology. Accessed August 13th from http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/6/B/%7B06BA8B79-E747-413E-A263-72FA37E42F6F%7Drpp80.pdf State of Washington, (2005) Sentencing Guidelines Commission, Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders; Fiscal Year 2005. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, Accessed August 13th from
A writ of habeas corpus is a directive from a court requiring the government to justify the imprisonment of a citizen. Because of the writ of habeas corpus guarantee, an individual cannot be held for more than a short period of time without being formally charged with a crime. (McNamara, 2010) The Due process clause also affords the accused of the right to trial by a jury of ones peers. These case are handled so that in a federal proceeding formal charges can not be levied without a grand jury hearing where an indictment must be issued. The jury trial and grand jury guarantees are intended to protect private citizens from over-zealous police officers, prosecutors and judges.
In America, the accused has the right to a trial because of the sixth amendment. No one can be put in jail without being found guilty by a jury of people who aren’t for or against the accused. The sixth amendment also states that the trial must be speedy. I highly agree and approve the system that the United Stated has because the victim is given the opportunity to demonstrate his or her innocence. We cannot say that the same procedure can be applied in an old communist country because people and the government are very corrupt.
One of the flaws that the opposition notices is that in way shield laws afford extra privileges to journalists and that no citizen should be able to ignore a court ordered subpoena. Simply put, journalist would be placed above the law. Justice Department Official John Ashcroft stated that “reporters today are driven by their editors to deliver tersely written “scoops” usually whispered to them by individuals with political or self-serving agendas who refuse to be identified” and that they “should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Allowing journalist this privilege would only further allow them you be able to utilize non-credible sources. Opponents also cite problems with defining who is considered a journalist or news gatherer and who is not.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right, it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance. Ironically, the very first federal appellate court in recent history to hold that there was an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the Fifth Circuit, then went on to nevertheless uphold the particular restriction that was being challenged! Mainly, that the guy was under a restraining order for domestic abuse and he wasn’t allowed to possess a gun. The court said the Second Amendment protects your right, but this regulation doesn’t violate your right.