Explain how the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination protects the innoncent AND the guilty.?
547999
The fifth amendment just gives you the right not to respond to questioning that will prove you guilty in a court of law.  This applies during an arrest or after or if you are a suspect in a case or during a trial.  If you testify during a trial than you wave your fifth amendment right and can be cross examned by the prosocutor.
872660
The Patriot Act itself only intrudes on some areas of privacy. That's bad enough, but it doesn't, in and of itself, take away any constitutional rights.\n\nThe problem is that many in power (at least, as of Monday) felt that constitutional protections can and should be ignored, if they might possibly result in people being safer. However, that's unconstitutional, by definition. \n\nWe only have those rights we can defend. And only those freedoms we choose to defend. Once we have abandonded those rights and those freedoms, they are lost. Once, and for all of us.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
282985
It's in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:\n\n"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."\n\nIf a person is found guilty of a crime, but later evidence shows up to prove he is innocent, he can request a new trial. In so doing, he would basically be waiving this portion of his 5th Amendment right. \n\nIf a person is found innocent, but later evidence shows up to prove he is guilty, the governmetn cannot violate his 5th Amendment right and re-try him for the same crime. But there is a loop-hole. He could be charged for a different crime. The 4 cops tried for beating Rodney King were found innocent, but then later re-tried for violating his civil rights. Same crime, different charges.
573184
1.  A.  Traffic courts have limited jurisdiction.\n\n2.  D.  WPA was supposed to help America through the Great Depression.  What actually got America out of the Great Depression was the buildup necessary to fight World War II.\n\n3.  A.  Don't quote me, but I believe it's Oregon.\n\n4.  A, possibly C.  The rights read to someone are actually the Miranda rights, coming from the Miranda vs. Arizona case in 1966 (I'm not sure if that's the case that you're trying to quote in C).  The right to remain silent stems from the Fifth Amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself" (paraphrased).  Marbury alludes back to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1801, where Marbury was a midnight appointment of outgoing president John Adams, who James Madison, the new Secretary of State, refused to grant credentials to.
980014
To law abiding citizens it seems to appear no threat on the surface. Why would it bother or affect me? The underlying fact remains that it could happen to you. It could affect you. A neighbour or co-worker you angered in some way, phones a pal in the government, abuses happen, remember the real "red menace " of the McCarthy years. Because this Act gives anyone the ability to suspend the one right America had defended since birth is indefensible due to it's very almost uni-lateral design. Even if you are truly innocent, this Act means that you could not present that evidence and you have no recourse? Don't sound American to me.
1077591
In Arizona back in the 1960's a man was arrested named "Miranda."  He was "encouraged" to confess to his crimes and later the US Supreme Court passed down the "Miranda" ruling which required police officers to inform arrested individuals of their rights;\n\nThe right to remain silent,\nThe fact that anything they say or do can be used against them,\nThe right to an attorney,\nAnd the right to an attorney if they can't afford one\n\nSadly the punishment for failure of law enforcement to engage in this practice is that guilty people are returned to society unpunished....
1060997
Convicted felons can be deprived of certain rights that otherwise are guaranteed by the constitution. This is an ancient and accepted legal tradition known as "civil death."  \n\nThis deprivation of rights is limited however to those things which are construed as being privileges of citizenship rather than fundamental human rights. Gun ownership, voting, the practice of certain professions, and holding civic office are the most prominent of such privileges.
229252
The guilt must be proved. This is writted in the law. But it's true that some people are treated like they were so. There are intents to stop this.
727347
What? About anything?  There are already certain restrictions.\nThe First Amendment (in the U.S.) does not include speech considered "incitement" -- speech encouraging imminent violence.  It also does not cover criminal speech, such as conspiracy (provided that, at least under federal law, there was an affirmative act in furtherance of the conspiracy).  In addition, criminals on probation are often restricted from being around or maintaining contact with known criminals, incidentally affecting their speech.\nBut the ability for people to associate and discuss politically controversial topics (whether it's racial segregation, the establishment [politically] of a Muslim [or Christian] theocracy, universal health care, the end of the death penalty, or a prohibition on abortoin) is the core of the First Amendment.  Just because you don't like the speech doesn't allow you to censor it.  Outside of the particularized harms listed above, and a few others (like fighting words, defamation, intellectual property infringement, etc.) we have to protect the speech, because some day you might want to associate and say something unpopular, too.
496802
Protecting the 4th amendment rights is more important.
776528
These are some of your rights if that is what you mean\n\n1.The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances.\n2.The right to bear arms openly–adopted with reference to state militias–is guaranteed by the Second Amendment\n3.The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be held for "a capital or otherwise infamous crime" without indictment, be twice put in "jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense, be compelled to testify against himself, or "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."\n4.The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of speedy and public trial by an impartial jury\n5.Seventh Amendment guarantees the right of trial by jury\n6.The Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."\n7.By the Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
502708
My friend is a public defender.  Even guilty people have a right to a competent defense.  They need an attorney since the other side has one.  Someone who helps them get a fair deal or plea bargain.  Someone who can help them evaluate the evidence against them and decide if they should plead or go to jury trial.  They have a right to legal advice.  It's a part of our justice system.  You can disagree if you want.  That's just how our laws have evolved.
1001288
The 4th Amendment is the answer to your question.  There is cross-over with the 5th Amendment, as it deals with custodial interrogation (interviewing), and whether the person has been read Miranda rights, and/or asked for counsel.\n     The 4th Amendment deals with arrest, (and interrogation/interviewing), search, and seizure.  Seizure can be another way to say arrest, as that involves seizure of the person.  The 4th Amendment is brought to bear on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and guards against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause/valid warrant.  There is MUCH more to know...follow the link below.\n     As stated, the 5h Amendment deals with the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, and the applicability of Miranda on statements made during custodial interrogation...type in 5th Amendment at www.findlaw.com for more information.  \n     The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, voir dire proceedings, and addresses other fair trial issues.  Findlaw is a good source of information for all of the above.
551508
Laws don't protect people.  They are not designed as a preventative measure.  Instead, they are designed as a deterrent and spell out the measures that will be taken against anyone who perpetrates a crime.   The concept is, inform people of those actions deemed by society as unacceptable and the people will not engage in those activities.  It works for most of society.\n\nAddressing it another way, the law is “reactive” not “proactive“.   It only becomes active after an offence has been committed, and another victim created. \n\nTo be anything else would constitute prior restraint.  We could lock everyone up and prevent crime that way.  But that is unfair, impractical, and it would never work in America.  You do find this type of action being taken in some countries around the world.  Recipients of this type treatment are often referred to as "political prisoners".  Their incarceration by a government is intended as a preemptive measure.  The idea is to find a individual or group perceived to be a threat and conduct a preemptive strike by locking them away before they can commit a crime.  \n\nThis sort of thing occurred in the US during WWI when legislation was passed that denied American citizens the right to criticize the government or it's war efforts.  The idea was to control vocal groups before they could be heard both here and in the enemy's camp.  \n\nWWII saw a similar activity when Japanese Americans were interned in camps away from the coast.  The concern was, where did the true loyalty of Japanese Americans lie.  The government felt Japanese Americans loyalty could easily lie with Japan even if the people had earned citizenship and had sworn allegiance to the United States.  Most of these families lost everything, their land, personal property, and any other holdings.  Some restitution was paid but many never recovered even a small percentage of their losses.  In my opinion the only thing good that came of this was that during WWII we didn't experience the wholesale execution of Japanese Americans.  While it was never tested, I believe feelings against the Japanese ran so high that many white Americans may have acted as vigilantes if the opportunity would have presented itself.  This action could have cost thousands of Japanese American lives right here in the USA.\n\nAnother aspect of our justice system in "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  This brings home the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  Typically the state has more resources than the defendant so the burden placed on the state is higher than on the defense.  All a defense attorney has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt in one juror and the result is a mistrial.  While the state must convince each and every juror "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the guilt of the defendant.\n\nI hope this helps, I tend to get a bit long sometimes but you can weed out anything you don’t want to use.
67577
You're correct. \n\nThe Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is \n"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
897404
That depends.  Were you charged with something or did you write a statement as a witness.  If you are charged with something you can always invoke your rights at any time.  Even if you invoke your rights they can still use your written statement against you.  If you were only a witness (or a victim) you can not "plead the 5th".  Then again, for the most part, they can not make you testify either.
105260
Self preservation.  They don't want to be hurt themselves emotionally or physically.  Some don't want to be inconvienced by the victim of having to attend court dates or such.  There are very few selfless people now days and it's a same.