Cheetah
Deity
Wikipedia said:The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects against unfair treatment in legal processes.
Specifically, how it developed into the famous Miranda rights. The full text, with the part which underlays the Miranda rights emphasised:
5th Amendment said: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.
I'm asking because this story:
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you
'You Have The Right To Remain Silent.' Or Do You?
[...]
But the truth is, it's not that simple. Courts have found that suspects don't have to be read their rights upon arrest, but only right before they are interrogated. And there can be a long lag time between the two.
[...]
"The California Supreme Court has left us in a no-win situation, where as soon as you are arrested the prosecutor can use anything you say [and] anything you don't say against you," says Marc Zilversmit, Tom's attorney.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar decision in 2013, in a case involving a suspect's silence prior to arrest. In that case, the suspect voluntarily answered police questions for nearly two hours but refused to talk in depth about a gun found in his house. The prosecutor used that against him at trial.
[...]
"Under these decisions, somebody in that situation, just as much as the person accused of murder or manslaughter, needs to announce that they are relying on the Fifth Amendment privilege," Fisher says. "It's not enough to simply refuse to talk to police."
[...]
"What's in the Constitution is a right not to be compelled to be a witness against yourself," Scheidegger says. "The Constitution does not say you have a right to remain silent, and although there is a lot of overlap in those two, they are not the same thing."
[...]
So if anything one says or doesn't say can be used against a person, what exactly is the meaning of 'witness against himself'? What was ever the practical application of that rule?