The Fifth Amendment was designed solely to ensure that the European court system would not be used where the defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent. In many parts of Europe the defendant was required to take the stand in his defense and prove his innocence. Failure to take the stand would be tantamount to pleading guilty.
The fifth amendment was never intended to be a protection against having your own out of court statements brought up in court. It was the Earl Warren Court that made it mandatory that before you confess you have to be advised of your right to keep your mouth shut. That was a really stupid decision and was way out of line with the intent of the founders.
Yet here we are on Free Republic with the majority of Freepers arguing that the Miranda Decision IS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT!
Warren used the same bastardization of the law to justify that decision that the Berger Court used to justify Roe v. Wade and the Roberts Court used to justify Obamacare.
I understand your premise. You represent it decently.
I’m only a layman, but it seems to me it’s reasonable to warn people to keep their yap shut. The general defendant at times is confused about what actually took place themselves. They’re confused about what guilt is reasoned. They’re confused about what the law actually is. In these instances they can confess guilt on conscience grounds, and be as wrong as can be.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe a spouse should be forced to testify against against their spouse? Perhaps you do.
If you do, then your argument would make more sense. If you don’t, it would seem you agreed with a guy being required to testify against himself, but then his wife wouldn’t have to.
The fifth amendment was never intended to be a protection against having your own out of court statements brought up in court. It was the Earl Warren Court that made it mandatory that before you confess you have to be advised of your right to keep your mouth shut. That was a really stupid decision and was way out of line with the intent of the founders.
What is the difference between the police being able to question you and use your answers (or non-answers) as evidence in trial and being required to testify directly at trial, if you do not have the right to not answer their questions?
If you can be compelled to provide out-of-court statements that are used as evidence, then you are being compelled to testify against yourself.
All that being said, I think this particular ruling will turn out to be problematic for the assumption of innocence soon.