I have been doing a lot of thinking on this topic for a while, and for the life of me, I can not figure out why it's a good thing. I realize there are several parts to the Fifth Amendment, but I am specifically referring to the portion that deals with self-incrimination.

I always hear the tagline, "Evoking your Fifth Amendment rights is not an admission of guilt." I am really trying to think of a scenario where, if I were accused of a crime and was completely innocent, where I would not want to testify in my defense. To me, the courts should be a place where the truth is told, and a jury determines guilt. Not requiring the accused to testify really seems like it directly underminds that goal.

I am certainly not 100% set on this being a bad thing, I guess I would really like some perspective that explains exactly why this portion of the Fifth Amendment does more good than bad.

10/12/2011 10:52:58 AM

The idea is that an innocent (or any person) can seek council first as to not say something that could get them in trouble.
One example pulled from this air: Guy is at home higher than hell, but somehow gets blamed for a crime that happened next door. Is he going to say I was at home by myself and totally stoned?
Probably, because he is a dumb ass, but ideally he would invoke his 5th amendment rights and then seek legal help.

Also in court the accused won't be getting on the stand and saying "yes, I did it." That would be great, but not likely to happen IMO.

[Edited on October 12, 2011 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2011 10:56:47 AM

also, you meant invoke.

10/12/2011 11:01:12 AM

I definitely agree with not talking prior to getting legal counsel. I was referring only to the courtroom scenario.

I guess in my mind (at least right now) if you require the accused to testify, you give the jury the opportunity to hear his/her side of the story. If the jury thinks he/she is lying, than that could either lead to a guilty verdict, or some kind of sentence for perjury.

IDK, I really really feel our court system, and our government as a whole for that matter is one big joke. We spend so much time exploiting loopholes and stuff, that it truly is an embarrassment.

10/12/2011 11:05:01 AM

It is more than just court where you use the 5th. In court is merely a consequence. The main purpose is to prevent police officers from interrogation you for days on end until you admit to whatever they want.

10/12/2011 11:07:04 AM

this video sums it up nicely.



<3 #5!

10/12/2011 11:13:20 AM

OK I watched that entire video, and it does a great job of explaining why not to talk to the police before you have counsel or for that matter, before trial. But it does very little to explain why taking the stand in your own defense could ever be a bad thing. The closest it comes to doing so is giving an example like, if a defendant tells his/her story, and there is even the slightest of inconsistencies, then the jury will convict the defendant on that fact alone.

I personally think that is pretty weak, and doesn't give juries very much credit at all. I think that most any jury can decipher between a trivial fact (an exact time, an article of clothing, etc etc etc) and a major inconsistency (why did you fail to report your daughter missing for over 30 days, and why did you lie to the police/your family/your friends the entire time).

We have the standard of convicting people beyond a reasonable doubt, which I think is a good standard. But allowing them to not testify makes proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt - especially when there are no witnesses, nearly impossible at times, and allows a lot of people that are guilty of some pretty serious crimes to walk free.

10/12/2011 4:15:01 PM

Quote :

"I personally think that is pretty weak, and doesn't give juries very much credit at all."

Go to wral.com, and find any article with a lot of comments. Those people are likely to represent the more intelligent half of your jury.

Still have faith?

10/12/2011 4:19:33 PM

the same reasons before trial apply during trial, that's why. further, anything you say that could "help" you wouldn't be worth much, coming from an accused person. you'd still need witnesses to corroborate your statements, which in the end, negates the need for the accused to testify, since witness testimony is usually worth more to the court.

Don't forget that this amendment is for the protection of the innocent; not just the guilty. It's there for a reason. Smart people know that when the government is trying to put you away; you're likely not the best person to argue your way out. Remember, you are the accused, and even though it's against "the rules" guilty until proven innocent still plays a part in the courtroom.

and as we have seen, juries can be stupid, thus testifying in your own trial opens you up to several possibilities of incriminating yourself, or making yourself seem worse than you are. and it always seems worse when the accused is called out for lying, making mistakes, etc.; especially when the accused sits before the jury, tells their side, then is blindsided by the prosecution on these mistakes, lies, etc.

10/12/2011 4:24:50 PM

Quote :

"Go to wral.com, and find any article with a lot of comments. Those people are likely to represent the more intelligent half of your jury."

So it sounds like your problem is that we have a trial by jury system if you think all jurors (or the majority) are too naive or ignorant to comprehend the truth.

And wdprice3, I am just going to have to accept the fact that we have two very different viewpoints on this subject. I really think repealing this specific portion of the Fifth Amendment would do a whole lot of good and very little bad when it comes to the prosecution of the guilty.

10/12/2011 4:48:09 PM

So many amendments... in the constitution... In the United States of America...


I can only choose one! I can only choose ooooooone!



FiF

10/12/2011 4:53:44 PM

I'd rather have the right to keep my mouth shut from the government than be forced to talk.

10/12/2011 4:56:33 PM

MaximaDrvr gave you the best argument for the 5th amendment already. Perhaps you're on trial for one thing, of which you may or may not be innocent, but in the course of testifying you might be asked something that would expose you as guilty of a crime not related to the trial.

More broadly, the substance of the clause is going to exist whether or not it's written down. You can't force somebody to tell the truth.

Quote :

"But allowing them to not testify makes proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt - especially when there are no witnesses, nearly impossible at times, and allows a lot of people that are guilty of some pretty serious crimes to walk free."

This is not the case. A District Attorney is not going to charge someone unless they think they have sufficient evidence without the testimony of the accused. Which makes good sense, because one could hardly expect them to tell the truth.

10/12/2011 5:08:53 PM