5th

William Safranek, 5th Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Fifth 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.”

The Fifth Amendment was one of the ten amendments that were part of The Bill of Rights, which was created in 1791 in order to make sure that the government didn’t abuse individual’s rights, appeasing Anti-Federalists, who were against a strong Federal Government. The Fifth Amendment addresses the rights of someone who has been accused of a crime, and grants them the right to a grand jury in order to have a fair trial; the right to not be charged for the same crime twice, also known as Double Jeopardy; the right against self incrimination, meaning that those charged with crimes will not be prosecuted for staying silent; and the right to due process, meaning that the government is not allowed to take a person’s freedom, possessions, or life away without going through a court system.

The Fifth Amendment also led to the Miranda Rights. When someone is arrested, the arresting officer must inform them of their Fifth Amendment right to stay silent. The Miranda Rights stemmed from the Supreme Court Case of Miranda v Arizona. Miranda was a man accused of kidnap and rape. He was not informed of his right to stay silent, and he confessed to the crimes and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. However, Miranda was granted early release because he was not informed of his constitutional rights. This case was used for the supreme court to set a precedent that the Fifth Amendment would be strictly upheld, and Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that it would be the police’s job to work within the confines of the Fifth Amendment, as well as other amendments from the bill of rights.

This case sparked fierce debates about the use of the Fifth Amendment, with some people believing the Fifth Amendment needs to be heavily enforced in order to limit the government’s power over the rights of individuals, while others believe that individuals’ rights are important, but the guilty should not be let free due to evidence gotten unconstitutionally, citing the Miranda case. Even the supreme court was divided on the matter, with the vote for Miranda to be released being 5-4.

The dissenting opinion written by Justice Tom Clark stated that he believed that strictly enforcing the Fifth Amendment would make the police’s job more difficult. Last year, Vega v Tekoh, a case very similar to Miranda v Arizona was brought to the Supreme Court. Tekoh was a male nurse who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman named Sylvia Lemus. Tekoh was interrogated by Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy Carlos Vega, who did not inform Tekoh of his Miranda rights. Tekoh confessed, but that confession was not enough for Tekoh to be found guilty.

However, when Tekoh sued Vega under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which provides the right for individuals to sue government officials for civil rights violations, the claim was not approved, with a 6-3 vote in the Supreme Court against the claim. The majority opinion, given by Samuel Alito stated that a Miranda Right violation wasn’t the same as a Fifth Amendment violation. This ruling was the opposite of the Miranda v Arizona case, implying a less strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. Of the several views of how the Fifth Amendment should be interpreted, I believe that it should be strictly upheld. While the strict use of the Fifth Amendment could lead to a few of the guilty being freed, it is ultimately more important that individuals’ rights are protected, and the innocent aren’t unjustly punished by the very government that is supposed to protect them.

George Lipton – Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

The idea of due process had been around for a long time before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, even appearing in Britain’s Magna Carta in 1215. However, the U.S. throughout its history has made it more specified and strengthened its direct ability to protect people accused of crimes. The intention in both of those documents was to promise that the governmental powers would not infringe on the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the right to property without a “fair trial.”

The due process clause is one of many assurances that the federal government would not be too powerful which was a major concern for the new country. The federal government cannot punish or take anything away from someone without a sentence that came from a trial. This clause also is a form of checks and balances over the executive and legislative branches when they create and enforce laws because within a trial, proving guilt is a process that is channeled through the judicial system. Throughout the country’s history, the due process clause has been used as a way to keep the government from acting outside of the law.

The term has now become interchangeable with the right to a fair trial, despite historically having broader implications. This leads to it often being confused with the 14th Amendment, which calls for equal protection under state laws rather than federal laws, also mentioning due process. The vagueness of the language of the amendment, the 5th amendment has been specified by numerous court decisions. One of the most famous ones is Miranda v. Arizona, a trial about self-incrimination without warning, which led to the creation of Miranda Rights. Another decision is Gideon v Wainwright, a case establishing the right to an attorney as a key part of due process. Over time the amendment has also created a constitutional rule called the vagueness doctrine which forces laws to be straightforward in their language in order to be enforced.

Finally, the concept of substantive due process, allows the supreme court to overturn laws that restrict citizens’ constitutional rights as a part of judicial review. Without due process of law, the government can arrest whoever they want without a proper trial which in a revolutionary context, could lead to a tyrannical government. Due process is a building block of the bigger concepts of the American Revolution seeking a government that fairly represented the people. This also relates back to Rousseau’s social contract because this puts a definition on the trade-off between freedom and security or the people and government. Due process is one of the many amendments that was related back to the argument over slavery because it is the legal aspect of abolition: to be enslaved is wrongful imprisonment without due process. This is why due process needed to be re-channeled in the 14th Amendment because states now had to guarantee due process in their courts as well. 

Mehela Noel: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

 

The Fifth Amendment includes double jeopardy, grand jury, self-incrimination, and eminent domain. The Due Process Clause of Amendment V claims that no individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Due process is still heavily used in courts to this day. There are two types of due process seen today in court; Procedural and Substantive Due Process. Both Procedural and Substantive Due Process are commonly seen in court cases affecting individuals of their life, liberty, and property. 

Procedural Due Process is the legal procedure that must be followed when governments are depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property. Procedural Due Process is still seen today not only in court, but daily through Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are stated when individuals are in police custody. These rights imply the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to be appointed an attorney. Miranda Rights are a representation of Procedural Due Process because it is a requirement that happens before they are in the custody of the police, which is a legal procedure that must be followed before individuals are deprived of their life, liberty, and property.

The roots of Miranda Rights date back to March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old woman from Phoenix filed a police report that she was kidnapped and taken to a desert, then sexually assaulted. Ernesto Miranda––the defendant of this case––confessed to kidnapping and rape during the police’s interrogation. However, prior to Miranda’s confession, the police did not inform him of his right to counsel and his right to refrain from self-incrimination. The detectives and officers did not acknowledge that Miranda had that right, therefore he was able to recant his confession, and not have it used against him in court. Ernesto Miranda’s confession was just one of many “forced confessions” during this time period. The Supreme Court determined that without certain warnings in interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, statements that are made during a custodial interrogation, are inadmissible during a trial.

Substantive Due Process focuses on liberty and whether there are fundamental rights implied when life, liberty, and property are being taken. Substantive Due Process is still a very prominent topic, especially in the landmark Supreme Court case, Roe v Wade. This case began when Jane Roe, a pregnant single woman in Texas, wanted to get an abortion. She was unable to get an abortion due to Articles 1191-1194 in the Texas Penal Code, denying her ability unless it was a deathly matter. Roe challenged this, stating that the Penal Code was unconstitutional, and a violation of her fundamental rights, referring to the Substantive Due Process Clause. This argument led to massive debate, and under Roe, the Courts rejected the claim that a woman is not able to terminate her pregnancy (this was later overturned in 2022). This Supreme Court case shows the importance and connection the Due Process Clause still has to the modern day.