I guess I don't get the intent of the fifth amendment. If telling the truth or answering a question incriminates you - isn't that the purpose of justice, to find the truth and prosecute the offender?
I just get riled when a person is asked a question and his lawyer whispers in his ear and he then smugly invokes the fifth and refuses to answer the question.
Enlighten me.
2006-10-13 18:27:52 · 10 answers · asked by LeAnne 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You have the right to not incriminate yourself.
It can be waived, and you can only not answer a question if doing so would directly incriminate you.
Such as : Where were you on the 5th? If you were out smoking crack in an illegal warehouse, you could technically plead the fifth. But if you were at home, drinking some scotch, not so much.
2006-10-13 18:32:50 · answer #1 · answered by cat_Rett_98 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first, that is something that you usually see on tv more than you see in real life :) if a person is THAT concerned with self incrimination, trust me, they will not take the stand at all (e.g., OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson).
second, the 5th amendment is a constitutional right tha far exceeds what we see on tv and in the court system. it often comes into play if you are in any situation, when you are talking to any person with the authority to use your statements against you. so if the police comes to your home to question you about your ex-husband's mysterious death, which you did not commit, you can tell them that you do not wish to speak with them until you speak to your lawyer. no, you have not been charged with a crime...but anything you say to the investigative officer can later be used IN YOUR TRIAL FOR MURDERING YOUR EX-HUSBAND. for instance, you tell the officer that you and your ex got into an argument a week ago...now all of a sudden you are a suspect with a motive! so people who know better (or usually they are just smart azzes :) refuse to say anything to prevent self incrimination.
bottomline...there is more to the right than what we see on Boston Legal.
2006-10-13 19:07:23 · answer #2 · answered by sexy law chick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law will allow you to self incriminate.Most people do if given immunity. But the fifth amendment of the constitution says you do not have to give testimony against you self.In fact when on trial, one does not have to give testimony at all.
Why would you get "riled" when someone invokes their constitutional rights? Would you rather we had the legal system of China? No court, no lawyers, just prison.
2006-10-13 18:37:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually British Common Law does not predate Christianity. It was created by King Henry the second(a Christian) in 1154. I just wanted to point that out seeing as the "in a century before Christianity" answer is quite innacurate. It was introduced not long after the dark ages. Sorry I don't have a proper answer, but that answer probably sounded to me the same way it does when, someone claims your founding fathers were all Christian". Innacurate enough. I am quite aware that British Common Law, was primarily inspired Greco-Roman law.
2016-05-22 00:29:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can answer any question you want. You just cannot be forced to admit guilt.
And you can be compelled to answer a question in court even if it means you admit to a crime in some cases. And even if you invoke the 5th Amendment, as you indicate above, it can be used to judge a person's credibility. It just prevents the government from forcing someone to admit to a criminal act. That is all it does.
2006-10-13 18:43:00 · answer #5 · answered by strangedaze23 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am no expert but to me it seems like if your lawyer is telling you to plead the fith then your laweyer believes they have no case and then it goes to trial and hopefully they find you not guilty. However if you do lose then your sentence is sually worse. However if you to confess and you plead guilty then will usually plea bargain and give a lesser sentence. Not really sure why I think either way they should be punished according to the crime and not whether they believe they were guilty or not but whatever.
2006-10-13 18:33:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should beat a confession out of them. Just beat them until they sign. We all know they are guilty. Why not just put the gloves on and give them pain and suffering until they confess. If that does not do the trick we can have them watch as we work over the wife and kids. They always are willing to admit their evil deeds when they see their children getting beaten to death. After all It Is the American Way, signed into law by President George II
2006-10-14 20:50:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
there has to be more evidence than just a confession to convict someone, for example john mark karr case confessed to killing the ramsey girl but there was no additional evidence to tie him to the crime.
the prosecution should have enough evidence to convict without the defendant confessing to the crime.
2006-10-13 18:33:31 · answer #8 · answered by jpeterman90210 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
talk to me over yahoo messager I had the same problem just the other day bur0123@yahoo.com
2006-10-14 21:24:32 · answer #9 · answered by bur0123 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because you have the right not to make the statement
2006-10-13 19:03:20 · answer #10 · answered by jgmafb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋