Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How to treat prisoners of war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How to treat prisoners of war
Are you always entitled to the protections of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment based solely on the fact that you are a citizen of or reside in the United States? The Fifth Amendment only applies to people, citizens or not, who are within the U.S. borders. If every person from the U.S. were entitled to the same constitutional rights outside the borders, as they are within, then the U.S. Government would not be able to use extraordinary rendition to interrogate persons of interest. Also, the U.S. Government would not be able to launch attack missions against their own citizens, whom are in a different country, if they were still protected by the Fifth Amendment. Lastly, people from the U.S. would not be held captive indefinitely, in another country for their alleged crimes, if they still had these protections. Many people in the U.S. believe that a person is entitled to their constitutional rights no matter where they are. People think that simply because one is a citizen or resident of the U.S. one is automatically given these rights and they cannot be taken away for any reason. Others however, feel that a person should be held accountable for any crimes committed no matter where they go or what the punishment is. People constantly debate on the constitutionality of the actions the U.S. Government has taken against different individuals because of this difference in beliefs. For example, the Government uses extraordinary rendition to get by with using interrogation methods that are not permitted under the U.S. law. According to The New York Times article titled “Rendition, Torture and Accountability” published on November 19, 2007(editorial), extraordinary rendition is “America’s notorious program of outsourcing int... ... middle of paper ... ...en to you by one country when you are being detained in another. The U.S. soldiers faced this same scenario during the Vietnam War, when they were held as POWs. These soldiers were held captive, subject to extreme living conditions, and tortured. They were not able to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights while they were being held captive. If these soldiers, who were protecting the United States, were not entitled to their Fifth Amendment rights, do you think that you will be entitled to yours in a foreign country? Works Cited New York Times article "Rendition, Torture and Accountability" published November 19, 2007 New York Times article "North Korea Prepares to Indict American" by Mark McDonald published April 17, 2011 Chicago Tribune article "A Terrorist's Due-U.S. Citizenship is not a Shield from Consequences of War" published on October 6, 2011
...d Upon.” The New American 1 July 2013: 19. InfoTrac War and Terrorism Collection. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without being taken to court for a fair trial, but that means nothing if the people are not willing to uphold it (Fifth Amendment).
Argument: Detective Willis’ questioning of the after Captain Wilson’s request for an attorney was not in violation Captain Wilson’s Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment is applicable to this case because there was government action involved. In addition, Captain Wilson was by definition in custody because he was arrested and taken to the police station where the suspect lost his freedom of action. Officer Heinrichs informed Captain Wilson of his Miranda rights and began questioning. While Captain Wilson was indecisive to either remain silent or follow his commanders advice, he did not invocate his right to remain silent clear and unambiguous to the police officers. That is why the questioning continued for another thirty minutes. Once Captain Wilson clearly implied “I am going to call a lawyer right now” is when the police officers ceased questioning immediately. As for Captain Wilsons statements to the undercover police detective “Jim”, are admissible under the Fifth Amendment. “Jim’s” question to Captain Wilson of why he was in jail is not in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Captain Wilson still had knowledge of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent because Officer Heinrich recently gave Wilson’s Miranda rights during their questioning. In addition, Miranda rights are only applicable during a custodial interrogation. Where in this matter, there was no custodial interrogation. “Jim” was not interrogating Captain Wilson. “Jim” was asking a
This is derived from the rights Americans have to not be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. But, the Fifth Amendment also protects against double jeopardy and gives people charged with a felony the right to a grand jury indictment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Double jeopardy basically states that if a conviction or acquittal was reached in a criminal case, the person can no longer be tried again for the same offense (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The procedural rights for self-incrimination are also applied to any custodial situations the police conduct. To ensure that statements, or confessions a suspect makes are allowed in court there is a two-prong tests that should be followed. First, is the person considered to be in a custodial situation and two, are the police intending to ask incriminating questions. If yes is the answers to both then the suspect must be read his or her rights. This is known as giving someone his or her Miranda rights derived from the famous case
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
Being a citizen of the United States comes with advantages that no other country can match. We are granted rights and privileges just for being born within our borders. Others can also gain these rights by adopting our way of life and swearing to uphold its values. Being a citizen or not, we are expected to obey laws that the U.S. Government has put in place to maintain order and balance. When we don’t obey these laws the government has the right to punish us. Luckily for us, our Bill of Rights has even granted us rights until proven guilty. It gives us rights to a fair and speedy trial as well as the right to representation during trial. So many rights and procedures have come about since the birth of our nation. We are constantly making new rules to help uphold the old rules and deciding if the old rules still apply. One practice that has been used during trial has no mention in the Bill of Rights, but has been held as constitutional is plea-bargaining.
are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an authoritative order forcing governments to provide the “body” of the detainee in which the legality of their detention and individual liberties will be challenged. Historically associated with civil liberty violation and the injustice of illegally detaining potentially enemies of the state, jurisdictional issues regarding their detaining location have made justice difficult to administer and deliver. Detaining enemies for their participation, involvement, and/or ties to threats of terror towards the United States will result the confinement of combatants, as solidified by the US Constitution, however, to what extent will they be forced to stay?. Residents of Guantanamo Bay are just; enemies of the state, accused individual that have been arrested and detain with minimal civil human rights to our jurisdictional due process that we American’s hold dear; with only a Writ of Habeas Corpus as their life line to legality and freedom. Although controversial in its conception and implementation by US presidential administration, judiciary members have cordially interpreted cases of questionable detention and the legality of doing so. It is truly unfortunate when individuals are tossed into confinement illegally with no help and/or the promise of their restorative freedoms (ACLU, 2014).
right is violated in any way it is most likely the violator would face criminal charges or
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
According to the U.S. constitution, fundamental rights hold a special significance under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. The Fourteenth amendment states that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law; nor deny to any person within its ju...
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
The entire American Government is based in the belief that all human beings are born with certain rights. People do not receive their rights from the Government; its function is actually to guard the rights we already have. Citizens are protected by the first amendment, which prohibits government from acting against anyone's rights.