The United States government under the articles of confederation was an almost unmitigated failure. In an attempt to protect the sovereignty of the individual states, the federal government was given practically no power. After the Shays Rebellion of 1791, it became apparent that changes were necessary, and the United States federal government was reorganized under the Constitution of the United States. Concurrently, concerns about citizens’ rights led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights alongside the constitution. Each of these amendments to the Constitution is essential in their own way, but perhaps the most important of the amendments was the fifth, which codified the right to refuse to be a witness against oneself in a criminal case.
…show more content…
Perhaps the most famous example of this loophole in the colonies is the Salem witch trials, where people were compelled to bear witness against themselves, had their property seized unjustly, and in some cases were even tortured to death in an effort to force a plea of innocence of guilt, which would result in forfeiture of property regardless.
The irony of the way in which the Salem trials were conducted is that the impetus that led to the puritans fleeing Britain was the very same system and methods employed in the trial. English common law once considered a refusal to take an oath of innocence as an admission of guilt- puritans objected to the practice, and refused to cooperate with interrogations as a result. Over a century later, the right against self-incrimination was codified in the United States’ Bill of …show more content…
Arizona, which ruled that the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence brought against a defendant at trial is only admissible if the defendant has been informed of his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to consult with an attorney. This Supreme Court decision was brought about by the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who provided a confession to police without being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that because he had not been informed of his rights, his rights had not been properly upheld. The key to this decision is the distinction between an informed waiving of those rights, and an uninformed waiving of those rights. If a person is convicted based on self-incrimination, the prosecution must be able to prove that they were explicitly aware of and subsequently waived their rights. Even in cases where rights have been waived according to the standards of the Miranda decision, it is still possible for a confession to be deemed coerced. Subsequent case law has ruled that continuing to speak to police after being informed of one’s right not to is an implicit waiving of the right to remain silent, and that not explicitly requesting an attorney is an implicit waiving of that right as well. Even so, confessions
Perhaps the most famous example of this loophole in the colonies is the Salem witch trials, where people were compelled to bear witness against themselves, had their property seized unjustly, and in some cases were even tortured to death in an effort to force a plea of innocence of guilt, which would result in forfeiture of property regardless.
The irony of the way in which the Salem trials were conducted is that the impetus that led to the puritans fleeing Britain was the very same system and methods employed in the trial. English common law once considered a refusal to take an oath of innocence as an admission of guilt- puritans objected to the practice, and refused to cooperate with interrogations as a result. Over a century later, the right against self-incrimination was codified in the United States’ Bill of …show more content…
Arizona, which ruled that the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence brought against a defendant at trial is only admissible if the defendant has been informed of his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to consult with an attorney. This Supreme Court decision was brought about by the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who provided a confession to police without being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that because he had not been informed of his rights, his rights had not been properly upheld. The key to this decision is the distinction between an informed waiving of those rights, and an uninformed waiving of those rights. If a person is convicted based on self-incrimination, the prosecution must be able to prove that they were explicitly aware of and subsequently waived their rights. Even in cases where rights have been waived according to the standards of the Miranda decision, it is still possible for a confession to be deemed coerced. Subsequent case law has ruled that continuing to speak to police after being informed of one’s right not to is an implicit waiving of the right to remain silent, and that not explicitly requesting an attorney is an implicit waiving of that right as well. Even so, confessions