The fifth amendment when used in a criminal trial setting is an admission of guilt

[airdata]

Have seen alot of people who seem to think this is absurd and yet can't counter the very basic logic of it.

Thought I may as well make a thread for those steering clear of the trayvon martin murder thread.

So let's just go over the basics.

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 offense 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.[1]

We're talking about the bolded part regarding being a witness against ones self.

So let's just get to the bare bones of this.

If somebody invokes the fifth amendment in a criminal trial setting, it means they're invoking their right to decline giving testimony which would incriminate themselves and make them a witness against themselves.

Now, in order for somebody to even have the capability to incriminate themselves, they'd have to be guilty. There's just no getting around this. An innocent person can't take the stand and incriminate themselves because they're innocent and have nothing to hide.

So, if a person refuses to incriminate themselves, they do so only because they have the ability to incriminate themselves, and are thus guilty.

Nothing to see here. The OP made statements incriminating himself for trolling in this thread. -Admin DrPizza

 

[momeNt]

Please highlight the word incriminate, then watch your argument fall apart.

 

[dank69]

Have seen alot of people who seem to think this is absurd and yet can't counter the very basic logic of it.

Thought I may as well make a thread for those steering clear of the trayvon martin murder thread.

So let's just go over the basics.



We're talking about the bolded part regarding being a witness against ones self.

So let's just get to the bare bones of this.

If somebody invokes the fifth amendment in a criminal trial setting, it means they're invoking their right to decline giving testimony which would incriminate themselves and make them a witness against themselves.

Now, in order for somebody to even have the capability to incriminate themselves, they'd have to be guilty. There's just no getting around this. An innocent person can't take the stand and incriminate themselves because they're innocent and have nothing to hide.

So, if a person refuses to incriminate themselves, they do so only because they have the ability to incriminate themselves, and are thus guilty.

You have refused to incriminate yourself. Therefore, you are guilty.

Seriously, read this. It is just the first hit of a google search of hundreds of similar articles explaining the reasoning behind pleading the fifth.

 

[Jaskalas]

You are a horrible person.

Folks should plead the fifth so they do not make mistakes when run around the circle 50 times or tricked into false or misleading testimony. There are ways to phrase a question to give the desired answer, or to lead you into a trap.

Playing their game, against professionals, is a good way to incriminate yourself when you are innocent.

 

[xBiffx]

The OP is guilty of being a moron because he chose to incriminate himself.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Are you still beating your wife? Yes or no.

Remember, you're under oath.

 

[1prophet]

Have seen alot of people who seem to think this is absurd and yet can't counter the very basic logic of it.

Thought I may as well make a thread for those steering clear of the trayvon martin murder thread.

So let's just go over the basics.



We're talking about the bolded part regarding being a witness against ones self.

So let's just get to the bare bones of this.

If somebody invokes the fifth amendment in a criminal trial setting, it means they're invoking their right to decline giving testimony which would incriminate themselves and make them a witness against themselves.

Now, in order for somebody to even have the capability to incriminate themselves, they'd have to be guilty. There's just no getting around this. An innocent person can't take the stand and incriminate themselves because they're innocent and have nothing to hide.

So, if a person refuses to incriminate themselves, they do so only because they have the ability to incriminate themselves, and are thus guilty.

They never learn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=relmfu

 

[waggy]

oh look. airdata once again proving to the forum how fucking stupid he is.

so in other news nothing new.

They never learn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

great thing to watch, learn and do.

 

[Matt1970]

The burden of proof is on your accuser. This isn’t Matlock where you can get a confession out of everyone just by putting them on the witness stand.

 

[Genx87]

The OP is guilty of being a moron because he chose to incriminate himself.

Well done

+1

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You still don't get it. In the Trayvon Martin case the burden of proof is on the prosecution so they must disprove self defense and prove the charges against George Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to his 5th amendment rights he can't be compelled to testify against himself. In fact he is not required to testify in this case, the jury can't hold his choice to not testify against him either.

 

[Geosurface]

airdata, I disagree with you but I have no interest in insulting you or trying to make you feel like an idiot for your opinion on this.

I can see why you would connect the dots in the way you have, but I just want to encourage you to consider a scenario where an innocent person is charged with a crime they didn't commit, let's say killing their wife, and they have become convinced that the prosecution isn't interested in the truth. That the cops wanted to wrap the case up quickly, accused the husband out of laziness and the fact that it's the obvious answer in many cases, did shoddy detective work, and now the prosecution is continuing this same pattern. They're using bad police work to railroad him to a guilty verdict, they're using emotional manipulation and skewing things about the kind of man he is, over-blowing little arguments he and his wife had had...

They've got it all wrong, but he's not a particularly eloquent man. He already regrets talking to the cops early on, because they twisted his words and used it against him. Now he feels burned by the justice system and worried any further words he gives them they'll twist again. He has no mind for all this legal crap, but he did have enough money for a decent lawyer and this guy seems to know his stuff.

So this attorney tells him it's best if he just leave it to him, let him bring the truth out using evidence and other witness testimony, if he gets up on that stand the prosecutor is going to rip him apart... he's familiar with this prosecutor and this guy could make an 8 year old girl on the stand look like Hitler, he's so smooth with his emotional appeals to the jury and his intimidating, overbearing cross examination style.

So the guy trusts the attorney, he doesn't trust himself, and he takes the 5th.

It's not unimaginable. I'm a bit of a true crime buff and I've seen some cases detailed where innocent men spent as much as 25 years or more in prison, I'm thinking of one in particular right now... and the prosecutor was shady as all hell. He ignored key evidence, hid evidence from the defense, etc. All about that conviction rate after all! If you were the person such a prosecutor was going after, you might want to avoid feeding into them or giving them any more ammunition against you. Even as an innocent person.

I'm not saying that in MOST situations the person taking the 5th isn't guilty, that is indeed probably the case. But, it certainly isn't all cases.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Negative. In general no competent criminal defense attorney will advise his client to speak to the authorities if there is any chance whatsoever (as there usually is) that the client might end up being charged. Heck, when I was a kid my mother (a judge and former defense attorney) told me never to speak to the police if I was arrested or interrogated about a crime.

Now, that being said, there are situations in which exercising the Fifth Amendment just looks suspicious and is likely to be seen by a jury as evidence of guilt. If, for example, as happens from time to time, a child goes missing and the parents either don't report it, or report it then refuse to assist the authorities with their investigation, it tends to make them look guilty. A prosecutor cannot comment on their pleading the Fifth, but that doesn't prevent a jury from relying on it to draw an adverse inference regarding their guilt.

 

[Geosurface]

the jury can't hold his choice to not testify against him either.

Well, they can.

They'll be instructed not to... but they can.

Much like "Court Reporter, strike that from the record" doesn't magically erase what was said from the jury's mind.

People are people. And people suck.

 

[monovillage]

oh look. airdata once again proving to the forum how fucking stupid he is.

so in other news nothing new.

^^^
This, /thread.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Pleading the fifth is an admission of guilt in the same way that refusing to let a police officer search your car during a routine traffic stop is an admission that you have two bodies and 60 kilos of black tar heroin in your trunk.

 

[Dulanic]

Pleading the fifth is an admission of guilt in the same way that refusing to let a police officer search your car during a routine traffic stop is an admission that you have two bodies and 60 kilos of black tar heroin in your trunk.

^^

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's better to be silent and let people think you're stupid than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[DrPizza]

OP, you need to watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

And part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
*Edit: the part one that I put up there has part 2 in it as well. Both sides of the story - from a defense attorney, and from the police - both sides say, "never talk to the police."


This should be part of basic education for all students. Given your attitude in the OP, it's probably the best way to spend close to an hour this week.

To everyone else, if you haven't watched those videos, watch them.

Hell, I ought to edit the OP and change it to "watch these videos."

 

[waggy]

OP, you need to watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

And part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

This should be part of basic education for all students. Given your attitude in the OP, it's probably the best way to spend close to an hour this week.

To everyone else, if you haven't watched those videos, watch them.

i have seen them a few times. That is something you should watch to keep fresh in your mind.

 

[Geosurface]

I owe George Zimmerman, because if I ever ended up in a situation where the cops were looking at me for something, I think I would've done what he did. I think I would've trusted to the truth and my own ability to express myself, and I would've talked and talked and talked, done whatever they asked. Even with all the things I'd seen before, which should've been enough to make me not do that.

I'm not sure about this btw, I might've gotten a lawyer involved instantly. But I wonder...

Now though, after seeing what happened to him? Oh there's no question at all what I'd do. Not a single peep until I'd conferred with an attorney. Other than maybe the line about "I intend to cooperate with your investigation but want to get counsel first"

and waggy is right about keeping it fresh in your mind, a person can definitely drift back to naivety about the justice system if they don't.

 

[woolfe9999]

Negative. In general no competent criminal defense attorney will advise his client to speak to the authorities if there is any chance whatsoever (as there usually is) that the client might end up being charged. Heck, when I was a kid my mother (a judge and former defense attorney) told me never to speak to the police if I was arrested or interrogated about a crime.

Now, that being said, there are situations in which exercising the Fifth Amendment just looks suspicious and is likely to be seen by a jury as evidence of guilt. If, for example, as happens from time to time, a child goes missing and the parents either don't report it, or report it then refuse to assist the authorities with their investigation, it tends to make them look guilty. A prosecutor cannot comment on their pleading the Fifth, but that doesn't prevent a jury from relying on it to draw an adverse inference regarding their guilt.

This. I don't have as much experience in the criminal arena, but I've represented defendants in a couple dozen criminal cases. It should be generally understood that people will not speak with the police, and will often refrain from testifying at trial, on advice of counsel. This advice is given routinely, regardless of whether the defense attorney believes his client to be guilty or innocent.

That said, some jurors may infer guilt from a failure to testify. The ones who aren't very savvy about how the system works.

 

[soulcougher73]

Are you still beating your wife? Yes or no.

Remember, you're under oath.

easy answer. "Ive never beat my wife"

 

[spidey07]

If you look at the history of the 5th amendment it becomes abundantly clear on WHY it's in there. Founding fathers knew history of previous goverments and what they would do, lawfully at the time, to get you to self incriminate/commit to a crime. Remember what the british representatives would do to colonists who wouldn't "confess" to their "crime".

The Self-Incrimination Clause is based on the idea that people cannot be forced to testify against themselves against their will, an idea that came to America from the English common law. This idea did not become established law in England until the 1700s. Prior to this time, people could be forced to testify against themselves, and this evidence was admissible in court, even if the evidence was obtained by torturing the witness.

These tactics had been used primarily to extinguish any political or religious belief that differed from the Royal government's. Forcing "confessions" by torture was common to many European nations. In England the notorious Star Chamber was the court in which many religious dissenters were tried and executed for their beliefs. A

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/self-incrimination-clause.html#ixzz2AzkbTfvJ

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I hadn't ever thought about those reasons to not talk to the police, but I'm going to listen to it.