# Could someone explain the 5th amendent to the constitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 14, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936 "2016-09-14T15:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/21 "2016-09-14T18:51:30Z")
Yes - “anything you say can and will be used against you.” If you confess before you are arrested, or after you have been read your Miranda rights, it will be used against you. That’s why they make defendants write down their confessions, or sign them if it is a transcription. That way, if the defendant changes his mind and pleads Not Guilty, they can produce proof of what they said when they confessed. And if I am not mistaken, if you plead Guilty you have to confess to each of the relevant factors in the crime. > [@CookingWithGas](#): > > This is not correct in any legal sense (IANAL). The average Joe may interpret it this way but innocent people take the 5th too. I believe that juries are routinely instructed to disregard whether a witness takes the 5th, rather than considering it a negative. In a legal sense, sure. Jurors are not to take the failure of a defendant to testify on his own behalf as evidence of guilt. I don’t doubt that much or most of the time, they are covering something up. But everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and that’s part of it. I think you can be compelled to testify if the prosecution grants you immunity, such that you won’t be convicted of the crime even if you confess to it on the stand. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magnusblitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/22 "2016-09-14T18:58:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Imagine a scenario where there was no fifth amendment and it could be made a crime to refuse to answer a question like “Did you commit the crime?” at your trial. > > You’d have three choices: > > 1. Confess that you committed the crime. > 2. Lie and commit the additional crime of perjury. > 3. Say nothing and commit the additional crime of refusing to answer the question. A lot of people would say “so what?” because that hypothetical seems to assume the person is guilty. But the 5th Amendment protects even an innocent person, because even if they took the stand and (rightly) professed their innocence, the court could then hold them guilty of trumped-up perjury charges. As **dofe** referred to, it goes back to the [Star Chamber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber) back in England: > [@](#): > > One of the weapons of the Star Chamber was the ex officio oath where, because of their positions, individuals were forced to swear to answer truthfully all questions that might be asked. Faced by hostile questioning, this then gave them the “cruel trilemma” of having to incriminate themselves, face charges of perjury if they gave unsatisfactory answers to their accusers, or be held in contempt of court if they gave no answer. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/23 "2016-09-14T19:22:58Z")
> [@bardos](#): > > My understanding then is if someone invokes the 5th amendment in a trial while testifying that they are in fact, a priori, confessing to some sort of unnamed criminal activity and are covering up. Imagine you were in the room when someone got stabbed to death, but you were not the murderer. The cops suspect you may be the guilty party, and they start asking you questions. Where were you when the murder happened? Did you and the victim get along? Do you own a knife? They are trying to establish that you had the [means, motive and opportunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity) to commit the crime. Even though you didn’t actually commit the crime, you were indeed in the room when it happed, and you thought the victim was a total prick, and you do in fact own a pretty bad-ass knife. Since you’re factually not guilty, it’s in your best interests to invoke the fifth amendment when the police are asking you those questions, and if it goes to court, the fifth amendment assures that you can’t be legally compelled to take the witness stand and answer those questions. As the Wikipedia article indicates, means/motive/opportunity aren’t enough by themselves to establish guilt, but they’re a damn fine start. The fifth amendment exists to protect factually innocent people like this; it’s a necessary by-product that it also happens to protect factually guilty people. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/24 "2016-09-14T19:23:07Z")
I know it’s a tangent, but the “can and will be used against you” part of the (possibly fictional version of) the Miranda warning has always bugged me. Specifically, the words “and will.” That implies to me that the Mirandizer is claiming how a statement WILL be used in the future. How can they know that? Looking up the Wiki article on Miranda warnings, it looks like “and will” is not required, and I wonder if those words are really used in real life. But that’s probably another thread…) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/25 "2016-09-14T20:02:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Only indirectly, though, no? If someone gets arrested and blurts out “I did it!”, the prosecution still can’t call him to the stand to force him to repeat this or force him to admit he said it, but _can_ present the testimony of police officers and other witnesses to say "Yes, I heard the defendant say ‘I did it!’ " > [@Shodan](#): > > Yes - “anything you say can and will be used against you.” If you confess before you are arrested, or after you have been read your Miranda rights, it will be used against you. > > That’s why they make defendants write down their confessions, or sign them if it is a transcription. That way, if the defendant changes his mind and pleads Not Guilty, they can produce proof of what they said when they confessed. And if I am not mistaken, if you plead Guilty you have to confess to each of the relevant factors in the crime. **Bryan** ’s point is a good one; they still cannot call the defendant to testify. Even in the case of a prior written confession, a police officer would be called to the stand to authenticate it. > [@Shodan](#): > > Jurors are not to take the failure of a defendant to testify on his own behalf as evidence of guilt. I don’t doubt that much or most of the time, they are covering something up. But everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and that’s part of it. One caveat is that the Fifth only protects against criminal consequences. If the victim’s family sues the defendant for damages in civil court, that jury can draw an “adverse inference” from the failure to testify. No cites, but I’m pretty sure, too, that administrative agencies can take a failure to answer into account. For instance, if someone filling out a state medical licensing board’s registration form declines to state where he went to medical school and cites the Fifth Amendment, I believe that the board can refuse to issue the license on the basis of that refusal to answer. > [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Imagine you were in the room when someone got stabbed to death, but you were not the murderer. The cops suspect you may be the guilty party, and they start asking you questions. Where were you when the murder happened? Did you and the victim get along? Do you own a knife? > > They are trying to establish that you had the [means, motive and opportunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity) to commit the crime. Even though you didn’t actually commit the crime, you were indeed in the room when it happed, and you thought the victim was a total prick, and you do in fact own a pretty bad-ass knife. > > Since you’re factually not guilty, it’s in your best interests to invoke the fifth amendment when the police are asking you those questions, and if it goes to court, the fifth amendment assures that you can’t be legally compelled to take the witness stand and answer those questions. Good analysis, and I would just say it slightly differently, that the Fifth lets the defendant be the one to decide when it’s in his or her interest to testify. The prosecution could establish all of the above factors by other means, for instance, and the defendant may well decide that testifying is the way to go, in order to explain away his or her presence while the murder took place. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/26 "2016-09-14T20:19:55Z")
> [@bardos](#): > > I don’t get it: > > Prosecution: “You’re guilty, you did it.” > Witness or defendant: “No” > > Repeat the above “interrogation” 500 times. Why do we need the 5th amendment in this case? Ok, so on the nite of the robbery (which you didnt do) you were cheating on your wife with a hooker. Or you are guilty but the prosecution has no real evidence. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/27 "2016-09-14T20:39:02Z")
Can a judge issue an order that grants amnesty to a witness? And would then a witness be forced to testify? The idea is that the witness is guarantied that their testimony wouldn’t be used against them, thus side-stepping the right to not self-incriminate. “Yeah, I was cooking meth when the accused stabbed to death the victim”. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/28 "2016-09-14T20:42:51Z")
[Here’s a webcomic](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5#crimpro)that explains it all. Very readable and easy to understand. [Chater 11](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5#crimpro)- intro to the 5th amendment. Chapoer 12 explains the historical context. Chapter 13 - shows some examples of when you can, and when you can’t plead the fifth. About 65 pages in all, and that’s comics pages, not legal textbook pages. Then it’s followed by chapter 14, an explanation of Miranda rights. That’s 59 pages, and also worth reading. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/29 "2016-09-14T20:44:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Can a judge issue an order that grants amnesty to a witness? And would then a witness be forced to testify? The idea is that the witness is guarantied that their testimony wouldn’t be used against them, thus side-stepping the right to not self-incriminate. “Yeah, I was cooking meth when the accused stabbed to death the victim”. Prosecutors can grant immunity which does allow them to compel testimony. Not sure a judge could do it, as he or she can’t tie the hands of the prosecutor. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/30 "2016-09-14T20:54:45Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > One caveat is that the Fifth only protects against criminal consequences. If the victim’s family sues the defendant for damages in civil court, that jury can draw an “adverse inference” from the failure to testify. A good point. If I get immunity from criminal charges, and am thus compelled to testify against someone, can my testimony be used in civil proceedings against me? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/31 "2016-09-14T20:56:49Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Imagine you were in the room when someone got stabbed to death, but you were not the murderer. The cops suspect you may be the guilty party, and they start asking you questions. Where were you when the murder happened? Did you and the victim get along? Do you own a knife? A real life recent example of potentially invoking the 5th when you’re not the one on trial: charges were recently dropped against Pete Santilli for his role (or non-role) in the Malheur occupation, but it is likely he will be called as a witness in the trial of the remaining defendants (Ryan Bundy has indicated that he intends to call Santilli). If he is called, he will almost surely invoke the 5th at some point to avoid any possibility of giving the government enough evidence to reinstate charges. ---
**Author:** ![Carl\_Pham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Carl\_Pham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carl_Pham)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/32 "2016-09-14T22:13:49Z")
It is unfortunately human nature to feel instinctively that the key to deciding guilt or innocence is what the accused says, and even more importantly, how he says it – does he exhibit what we consider to be evidence of shame, guilt, outraged innocence? Does he seem like the “type” of person that would do such a thing? And so on. After some centuries of working with natural instincts, it becomes clear to enlightened people that you end up convicting people who are unpopular, poor, ugly and tongue-tied, and acquitting people who are rich, beautiful, well-liked and gifted in bullshitting and acting. Not exactly a desirable state of affairs. Legal devices like the 5th Amendment rule out the direct tribal instinctual method of judgment. In this case, the 5th Amendment says you (the citizens, vice the state) may not insist that the accused provide testimony, so that you (the citizens, vice the jury) can decide whether he has a guilty/innocent face while speaking, whether you like his tone of voice, et cetera, and proceed straight from “Do I like this character?” to “He’s guilty/innocent.” With this and other constraints, the state is forced to rely on indirect means of proving guilt that usually have more to do with objective fact. It’s far from perfect, of course. Your chances of getting away with murder are far higher if you are a young attractive woman with a charming way of speaking than if you are instead an alcoholic ugly middle-aged man with a short temper. But it helps. Indeed, it’s amazing it exists at all, and we can argue it does because the law is more likely to be drafted by the old and ugly than the young and beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/33 "2016-09-15T04:55:44Z")
IIRC, the Napoleonic / French system used in most of Europe, the judge is more of an interrogator sometimes. The accused cannot refuse to testify - no fifth - but the logic is they cannot be charged with perjury even if it can be proven they lie. Not sure what happens if your testimony incriminates you in a different crime. The point of the 5th is, as others indicate - the government must prove its case without your cooperation. First, because in the middle ages, “cooperation” had a wide definition; second, because without that provision, they would simply round up the usual suspects, one by one, and try them in sequence until they found someone who could not come up with a plausible story. All those great detective stories are about finding the truth. If all they needed to do was arrest whomever they felt like, and put them under the bright light and see what sticks - we’d have no freedoms. As for double jeopardy - if the state could keep trying someone every time the verdict was unacceptable to the prosecutor, or if all you needed was to produce an additional piece of evidence or witness not used in the first trial - some people would never go free. If necessary, the prosecutor would hold back one detail for a do-over. Being able to arrest or harass people on a whim is also the slipperiest of slopes to totalitarianism. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/34 "2016-09-15T10:35:39Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Prosecutors can grant immunity which does allow them to compel testimony. > > Not sure a judge could do it, as he or she can’t tie the hands of the prosecutor. I think, a judge can ask a prosecutor to show why a line of questioning is germane to the case being tried, and disallow it if it appears to be fishing in other waters. One would certainly hope that the prosecutor’s hands can be tied as readily as the defense’s. ---
**Author:** ![bardos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bardos/32/1069_2.png) [@bardos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bardos)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/35 "2016-09-15T10:41:01Z")
OP here. Well, my confession. I was not so much thinking about criminal trials but what I have witnessed watching C-Span transmissions of the current House of Representatives committee hearings in which one after another, the subpoenaed witnesses are taking the fifth amendment so as not to testify. In fact they are not even answering questions about non-related issues, simple questions that would not implicate themselves in anything, it seems to me. Are they saying that if they answer the questions put to them truthfully by the committee members, it would implicate them in a crime and thus they invoke their constitutional right to not say anything? This is what I do not understand. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/36 "2016-09-15T13:31:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A good point. If I get immunity from criminal charges, and am thus compelled to testify against someone, can my testimony be used in civil proceedings against me? > > Regards, > Shodan Yes, subject to the hearsay rule and certain other rules of evidence. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > One caveat is that the Fifth only protects against criminal consequences. If the victim’s family sues the defendant for damages in civil court, that jury can draw an “adverse inference” from the failure to testify. I don’t believe that’s true. A jury may draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify _in the civil case_, but not from a failure to testify in other proceedings. > [@bardos](#): > > In fact they are not even answering questions about non-related issues, simple questions that would not implicate themselves in anything, it seems to me. > > Are they saying that if they answer the questions put to them truthfully by the committee members, it would implicate them in a crime and thus they invoke their constitutional right to not say anything? This is what I do not understand. Not that it would implicate them in a crime, but that it would “tend to incriminate them.” In other words, it might make it _look_ like they had committed a crime, even if they were in fact innocent. To use one example that has been presented already, admitting that you were present at the time that a murder defendant was killed would tend to incriminate you, even if you had nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/37 "2016-09-15T13:45:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t believe that’s true. A jury may draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify _in the civil case_, but not from a failure to testify in other proceedings. At least, that is the rule in Florida. > [@](#): > > Appellants have presented four points all of which are supported by assignments of error. We find it necessary to discuss each of the points. The first point urges that the trial court erred in failing to sustain an objection to questions on cross-examination whereby the plaintiff driver Knouse was “impeached” by a showing that he had invoked the privilege against self-incrimination at the taking of a deposition in the case brought by the personal representative of the deceased Barlow. The court allowed the testimony over objection during the cross-examination of the plaintiff driver Knouse. Counsel for the defendant Haas was permitted to bring out from the responses of Knouse that during the taking of his deposition in the Barlow case Knouse had, on the advice of his attorney, declined to answer questions concerning the accident, based on his privilege against self-incrimination. This “impeachment” was permitted even though Knouse had answered all questions in a deposition given in his own case. > > We hold that the trial judge’s ruling on Knouse’s invocation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination as a witness in a deposition in a different case was wrong. The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination extends to prevent the showing in a civil case of the prior exercise of the privilege in a criminal action. The admission of the prior exercise of the self-incrimination privilege would tend to destroy or chill the exercise of such a right. Allred v. Graves, 261 N.C. 31, 134 S.E.2d 186 (1964); Loewenherz v. Merchants’ & Mechanics’ Bank, 144 Ga. 556, 87 S.E. 778 (1916); Hall Motor Freight v. Montgomery, 357 Mo. 1188, 212 S.W.2d 748 (1948); Masterson v. St. Louis Transit Co., 204 Mo. 507, 103 S.W. 48 (1907); 58 Am. Jur. Witnesses § 56 (1956); 2 A.L.R.2d 1297 (1948). > > This rule is directly applicable here. Knouse was only a witness, and not a party in the prior action. He did not claim the privilege in his own case, a claim which might well have led the defendant properly to seek a dismissal. Minor v. Minor, Fla.1970, 240 So.2d 301; Stockham v. Stockham, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 320. The testimony as to Knouse’s action in the prior case was not relevant to any issue being tried in the present litigation. It cannot be regarded as impeachment because the fact that one claims a constitutional right may not be said to show a disregard for the truth. > > Walton v. Robert E. Haas Constr Corp., 259 So. 2d 731, 733-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), _cert. denied_, 265 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1972). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/38 "2016-09-15T14:37:32Z")
> [@bardos](#): > > OP here. Well, my confession. I was not so much thinking about criminal trials but what I have witnessed watching C-Span transmissions of the current House of Representatives committee hearings in which one after another, the subpoenaed witnesses are taking the fifth amendment so as not to testify. > > In fact they are not even answering questions about non-related issues, simple questions that would not implicate themselves in anything, it seems to me. > > Are they saying that if they answer the questions put to them truthfully by the committee members, it would implicate them in a crime and thus they invoke their constitutional right to not say anything? This is what I do not understand. No. The rule in Congress is that if they allow questioning into anything, they legally open themselves to questioning on everything. If they are to use their Fifth Amendment rights, they must apply them from the beginning. They can identify themselves but answer no substantive questions, even seemingly innocuous ones. Most people, like yourself, don’t understand this and it does have the appearance of making them look guilty. But they have no option. ---
**Author:** ![bardos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bardos/32/1069_2.png) [@bardos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bardos)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/39 "2016-09-15T14:46:42Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No. The rule in Congress is that if they allow questioning into anything, they legally open themselves to questioning on everything. If they are to use their Fifth Amendment rights, they must apply them from the beginning. They can identify themselves but answer no substantive questions, even seemingly innocuous ones. > > Most people, like yourself, don’t understand this and it does have the appearance of making them look guilty. But they have no option. Hate to say it but it makes them look slimy actually, especially their lawyers who sit behind them. Doesn’t it mean that they have some knowledge of a crime and, even if innocent bystanders, and they take the 5th to avoid… not sure what? Still having trouble wrapping my head around this technique. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936/40 "2016-09-15T15:15:19Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > The Fifth Amendment does several different things which have different purposes. It’s important to understand each of them. > > Let’s do them in order. > > [ol] > > [li] **Double jeopardy** [/li] > The Fifth Amendment guarantees that the same person will not be charged twice for the same crime in the same jurisdiction (“to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”) The purpose here is to prevent an abusive prosecutor from harassing a person by repeatedly charging them with the same crime, even if the defendant is found not guilty each time. [/ol] Double Jeopardy is a protection against not just abusive prosecutors, but lazy ones. If it wasn’t there, a prosecutor could say “Well, we don’t have a lot of evidence yet, but maybe enough to win a trial, and I don’t feel like looking harder. Let’s charge them; maybe we’ll get a jury that doesn’t question our evidence and we’ll win. If not, _then_ we’ll dig some more and maybe come up with something that will let us win the next one. Or, maybe not even do any more digging, we’ll just keep at it until we get a jury that happens to vote our way” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-someone-explain-the-5th-amendent-to-the-constitution/765936.md?page=3)