One of the most significant amendments that pertain to the criminal justice system is the Fifth Amendment. Comprised of five clauses, the Fifth Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the accused and secures life, liberty, and property. Each of these clauses help to promote the fundamental principles of this nation within the justice system. None, however, may be as crucial as the “Self-Incrimination Clause,” when discussing the criminal justice system.
The Self-Incrimination Clause is found in the third clause of the Fifth Amendment. Self-incrimination is defined as an act of producing information that would suggest an individual’s involvement in a crime or leave an individual vulnerable to criminal prosecution. The clause provides that, “Nor shall (an individual) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Individuals can refuse to answer questions, provide any potentially incriminating statements, or testify at any criminal trial. This right exclusively protects individuals and does not apply to artificial entities apart from sole proprietorships. Physical evidence that is non-testimonial is not protected under this clause. This right typically applies to criminal proceedings, however it may be employed by a witness in any proceeding if their testimony may incriminate oneself in future criminal proceedings, even if the testimony is given during a civil procedure. The exception for this is if the civil records are maintained for administrative purposes as public record.
There are several theories on the historical background of the right not to testify, but they are all rooted in the 15th-17th century courts of England. Today the phrase, “star chamber proceeding,” is used to describe an unfair and unjust legal process. The Star Chamber Courts of Medieval England were initially used to try noblemen who held too much power to be tried before a common court. Eventually they became a complete and total abuse of power where a committee of the king’s council would conduct the proceedings in secrecy and in extreme situations, torture individuals to obtain confessions and suppress opposition. Individuals would be coerced into confessing involvement in a crime regardless of the validity of the confession. Over time there was an acceptance that no man should be required to testify against himself in any proceeding seeking criminal prosecution. The source of this proposition is found in the maxim “beno tenetur seipsum accusare,” which translates to “no man is bound to accuse himself.” The Star Chamber Courts were abolished in 1641 after the understanding that an individual would confess to something they are innocent of when placed under duress became universal.
In American history this privilege finds few precedent in several of the original colonies, but during the debate revolving around the Bill of Rights, six states had already included the right in their constitutions and multiple states lobbied for the inclusion of it in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. James Madison’s original version of the clause left out the phrase “in any criminal case,” but an amendment passed by the House inserted it into its language. There have been numerous Supreme Court cases referring to the privilege and the Court has consistently upheld and expanded upon its principles. Notable cases include, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1(1966), Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Malloy’s decision established that to determine if a statement or confession was properly obtained, one must consider if the statement was given freely and voluntarily without improper influence. Griffin held that during a trial if a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate, silence could not be interpreted as an admission of guilt and restricts both the judge and prosecution from telling the jury it is as such. Miranda provided the now integral Mirand Rights, which state that if an individual is not made aware of his rights, then any self-incriminating statements made by the individual will be inadmissible in court. The importance of these decisions is paramount. They ensure that an individual is protected against malicious prosecution and holds that is the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt, and not that of the individual to prove innocence.
The right to remain silent is not merely a legal safeguard; it is a fundamental pillar of justice in a free society. Its purpose is to protect an individual from coerced confessions and self-incrimination, ensuring that the pursuit of truth in our criminal justice system is balanced with dignity and integrity. The profound wisdom of the framers of the Constitution allows this right to the individual as a bulwark against tyranny, an affirmation of the principle that no one should be compelled to contribute to their own downfall. It is a testament to the idea that justice is not just about punishing the guilty but also protecting the innocent. The core values of fairness and the enduring principles upon which our legal system is founded are preserved by this essential right.
By Austin R. Vidal
Comments