Courtroom dramas have us pretty well indoctrinated about 'pleading the Fifth", where you do not have to incriminate yourself. Cop shows take that a bit further, as they remind us that you both have the right to remain silent (as a means of not incriminating yourself), and that you have the right to an attorney, which comes from the Sixth amendment. When we look, there is more to them.
V
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 offence 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 reminds us that there must be due process, both for our time and for our property. The principles regarding search and seizure from the Fourth Amendment are reaffirmed in the Fifth.
We see that for an "infamous" crime, charges will pass through a grand jury first, and yet we also see that military law can operate separately. Questions about the power of military tribunals could refer back to the amendment.
VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.
You do not just have the right to a lawyer, but you have a right to get witnesses. There have to be resources in place for that lawyer, and therefore you, or a fair trial cannot be guaranteed. The jury should be impartial, so said counsel looks for prejudice during jury selection.
The attempt to get an impartial jury may lead to a request for a change of venue, but it is generally believed that justice should happen locally.
Sometimes appointed defense doesn't do a very good job, or there is prosecutorial misconduct, and then there can be grounds for a conviction to be appealed.
If a conviction is overturned you may be retried, but in the case of an acquittal you cannot be retried for that same crime.
(That is however an incident of a crime, not the charge, so in Double Jeopardy when Ashley Judd said she could kill the husband who faked his death now and walk free, that was incorrect.)
I think it's good to review these from time to time anyway, but there are a few specific thoughts I have here.
Some of them go back to junior high. One class had a civics section and we even did a mock trial where I was the judge. (We had a hung jury, so I didn't do much..) They also showed us some short films.
In one, a new technology had been developed that allowed memories to be viewed. Prosecution argued that this technology should be allowed to determine the guilt of the suspect. I believe he argued that the reason for the right not to incriminate previously was to eliminate the motivation for torture - or maybe that was what I assumed - but this was painless and accurate. The movie raised the question, and then we were supposed to debate it.
I remember feeling very uncomfortable with it. Not knowing the truth when you had a chance didn't seem right, but using the technology didn't seem right either. What I would assume now is that once you have a technology to view memories it will shortly be followed by a technology to tamper with the viewing, later born out by an episode of Star Trek: Voyager.
In the other film, we saw two alternate scenarios. In one the guy definitely committed the robbery and homicide, but he was very cool about it and asked for a lawyer and he was going to walk. In the other scenario, a guy stumbled across the murder victim after, was totally freaked out. He talked to the cops openly and they were going to nail him for it. Well, you can hope that he would get good counsel, or evidence would turn up, but it looked bad.
That, and reading many accounts of police lying and running long and tricky interrogations, means that despite being a very law-abiding person, if I get called in, I'm asking for a lawyer right away, regardless of how needless it seems.
My other thought is for Kalief Browder:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html?_r=0
There is no definition of "speedy" that can possibly include three years. Browder's experience was cruel and unusual punishment without a conviction, but when we believe in warehousing people in jails, that happens. When we don't think about what we really want our legal system to accomplish, that happens. When there are people who think about the system and find that it is profitable to imprison people, or to use crime as a way of enforcing social and class strata, that happens.
We have some very solid values built into the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself, but it is only a mockery if we don't live up to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment