Once More, I Repeat, It’s Groundhog Day Again (What’s wrong with the 5th Amendment)

So you think the 5^th Amendment is the bedrock on which our judicial system is grounded? Maybe you’re right. But is the due process of law before a Grand Jury putting just compensation in jeopardy with the lack of mandated self-incrimination?

Amendment V

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.

We have here the longest entry amongst the Bill of Rights. I have some problems with it—no surprise there. First off, it’s a single sentence. In fact, in the first 10 Amendments, there are exactly 10 periods. Something to be said for consistency, I suppose. My real problem, though, is the flow of this 3-semicolon monstrosity. For consistency sake, the eyesore really should have 4 semicolons to break up the Amendment’s 5 component parts: 1) Grand Jury indictments, 2) double jeopardy, 3) self-incrimination, 4) due process, and 5) just compensation.

And why tuck the “due process” clause so far down in the meat of the Amendment? Grand Jury indictments, double jeopardy [RIP Alex], and self-incrimination all fall under the veil of due process. I guess those long dead fellas were fans of burying the lead, adding a bit of suspense to a boring legal document. Sorry, that was redundant . . . to a legal document. Then we have the “just compensation” clause hanging on like the 5^th wheel at an after-prom double date. Let’s address this black-sheep of the family first.

From the unsurprisingly little research I did, I understand that the government can take private land for public use after compensating the owner with current fair-market value. This completely sidesteps the supply and demand aspect of capitalism our country is built on. A single bottle of palatable water on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean is infinitely more valuable than lead-free pipes in Flint. If the government must obtain your land to build their new on-ramp, it’s value to them far exceeds that which the market dictates. This portion of the 5^th Amendment is anti-capitalistic, equating to theft. If time is not an imminent factor, there’s little stopping the government from enacting measures to drastically decrease the market value of a piece of land before swooping in to take it at the artificially discounted price.

We must remember that many people’s primary investment is their property. Taking their home from them in this manner is on par with telling a 64 year-old worker that the tax rate on their 401(k) disbursements will henceforth be 75%. The news completely upends all past efforts to plan for the future. Here’s my solution, funneling as best I can the writing style of the 18th century:

Amendment V₁

Just compensation shall be calculated subsequent to anticipated fair market value at such time owner parallels national life expectancy plus 20 years, guaranteeing one score and 10 years; said income being, furthermore, non-taxable, with subsequent property taxes and fees levied on governing entity.

Doesn’t completely make sense? Perfect. I did lawyers proud.

What I can’t make sense of is the section that reads: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. I understand we can’t try someone for the same crime over and over and over and over until the Punxsutawney prosecutor hones his best arguments to the right set of jurors, finally convicting the defendant. But why should the accused not be forced to take the stand with an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? One would think that the objective of our criminal justice system is to find out the truth, and to enact retribution as justly and efficiently as possible. Who better to answer questions about a crime than the man indicted for that very transgression?

I believe there are far too many laws. The judicial system itself is a Rube Goldberg machine of complexity. Too many legal hoops to jump through. Too much recourse for the defense counsel to create that iota of reasonable doubt required to set their guilty client free. Sure, defendants would constantly spout lies. But do you really think the average witness is compelled to tell the whole of the truth simply because they took the equivalent of a stick-a-needle-in-your-eye, pinky-swear, on-your-mother’s-life, oath? The truth is more out of place in an American courtroom than a Starbucks coffee cup is in Game of Thrones. Go straight to the source; put the defendant on the stand.

So, you still think the 5^th Amendment is the staple holding together the pages of our judicial system? It did play a vital role in laying the foundation of our court processes. At least until those MIT nerds develop real-life Minority Report precognition abilities. But, even then, the “self-incrimination” clause would prevent a precognition originating in the future felon’s mind from being used to stop the act before he commits it. So there you have it, folks. The 5^th Amendment will forever allow you the opportunity to commit that perfect crime you’ve been planning. Totally worth the risk of being forced to sell my house for some future public use only Tom Cruise currently knows about. So, I guess, yeah, come to think of it . . . You’re Probably Right.

[022] December 09, 2020