Comment: As I see it...

(See in situ)


As I see it...

The fifth amendment was instituted to protect you from compulsory self-incrimination or from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself.

If a you feel the answer to any question may incriminate you, then you can remain silent.

You can only be compelled to answer a question if granted immunity from prosecution should that answer incriminate you.

Once immunity has been granted (even if you have not asked for it) you can no longer remain silent because the answer can no longer be used to incriminate you and the 5th amendment does not apply, if under these circumstances you still refuse to answer you would be held in contempt of court.

The Fifth Amendment is centered around the right of the accused to refuse to comment or provide an answer when questioned (You have the right to remain silent).

Any answer given in court is admissible and can be used as evidence, once protection of the 5th is invoked (by refusing to answer for fear of incriminating yourself) it is up to the court to decide whether - in the circumstances - immunity to the witness (you) could aid in the pursuit of justice.

At trial - under the protection of the 5th - the prosecution can neither call the you as a witness, nor comment on your failure to testify. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case alone with the evidence that brought you to court in the first place.

Even a signed confession cannot be used as evidence of guilt unless it can be proven that it was given without the threat or use of duress of any kind.

Quite simply put:

Any question answered without force is admissible in court, should the law be used to force an answer, then immunity is guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

This common understanding was drawn from the times when torture and brutality was used by those in positions to enforce “justice”.

You cannot be punished for the crime of remaining silent, such a law does not exist!

Nor can anyone assume that not answering an accusatory question somehow implies guilt.

Even in the event that you have answered prior questions, you can not be expected to answer a question (by force) that may incriminate you. Force – once approved in law - could be applied until the desired answer is given.

It's not rocket science if you think about it.

I repeat:

It is up to the prosecution alone to prove their case with the evidence that brought you to court in the first place.
...should the law be used to force an answer, then immunity is guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

The granting of immunity in this case (which is what testimony under the force of law would automatically guarantee) would only serve justice if it could lead to evidence against another person who is ultimately responsible for the crime at hand.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself