Duane’s Assessment of the 5th Amendment
Professor Duane’s assessment of the 5th Amendment is valid. During his lecture, the professor provides seven strong arguments to support his statement (“Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1”). It is clear that a perfectly innocent person can make incriminating statements due to various factors, including but not confined to being too emotional, being unaware of some laws, and being intimidated. The professor also adds that contemporary technological advances can also be used against a person who talks, which is true.
This view is supported by some researchers and practitioners. For example, Mohan and Villasenor state that the digital era is associated with various means that can help a person prove his/her innocence, but there are cases when technology can incriminate (12). Duane provides a simple example of when a person could be incriminated if his/her answers were tape-recorded, but questions were not.
Surprising Points
One of the surprising points was the fact that the police officer also supported some of Duane’s arguments. He noted that innocent people might say something that may be used against them, which happens all the time. One of the factors provided is rather surprising. The police officer says that people make incriminating statements as they are “stupid” (“Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 2”). A simple test held in the classroom shows that people are inattentive even if they are in a relaxed and friendly environment (“Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1”). Thus, even if a person is innocent, he/she can say something that can be used against him/her as the devil is always in the detail. One of the most common pitfalls is that answers can be used as regards the entire situation or even case rather than a particular question posed (Arnold and Farashahi 35).
Changing Public Opinion
It is necessary to note that the 5th Amendment is seen rather negatively in society. This right is often associated with adverse inference (Szak 11). People tend to think that if a person does not want to testify, he/she has something to hide, which makes this individual guilty. The recent case of Martin Shkreli can be regarded as a good illustration of that negative attitude as people believe the former chief executive of a pharmaceutical corporation is guilty as he does not testify (Pollack and Huetteman par. 34). It is necessary to add that people already have a negative view of the defendant as he is a representative of the pharmaceutical industry, which is seen as unfair and corrupted. People think that Shkreli does not testify, and only this makes him guilty.
Thus, concealing or simply refusing to provide certain evidence is also regarded as proof that the person is guilty. However, there are many cases when the person may want to be silent as interpretations of words can make even an innocent person guilty. Duane provides various examples of such instances (“Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1”). It is important to make Americans change their attitude towards this Amendment as, during courts, it is still seen as a thing against the defendant. People should understand that keeping silent is a right that protects them from errors, which are very common in the judicial system of any country, even the USA. To change this opinion, it is important to use media and start a wide debate on the matter.
Works Cited
Arnold, David L., and Afshin Farashahi. “The Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Civil Cases.” Virginia Lawyer 58.1 (2009): 34-37. Print.
Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1 2008. Web.
Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 2 2008. Web.
Mohan, Vivek, and John Villasenor. “Decrypting the Fifth Amendment: The Limits of Self-Incrimination in the Digital Era.” Journal of Constitutional Law Heightened Scrutiny 15.1 (2012): 11-28. Print.
Pollack, Andrew, and Emmarie Huetteman. “Martin Shkreli Invokes the Fifth Amendment During Grilling by Congress.” The New York Times 2016. Web.
Szak, Dona. “Asserting the Fifth Amendment in Civil Proceedings.” Energy Litigation 10.1 (2010): 10-13. Print.