Beethoven's Fifth
Today I'm going to add to my ever-growing List of Things I Don't Understand™. Today's addition has been rattling inside my disgusting head for a while now. It's law related, which might be part of the reason I don't understand it. The sum of my legal knowledge comes from: movies, hanging around law students, CSI, Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Miami, and Legal Counsel (if she was trying to be a teacher, she'd be great - as it stands, I'm learning mostly through diffusion).
I'm going to put today's item at slot #81, right between #80: Why would Frosty the Snowman where a hat - it would just speed up the melting process and #82: The same goes for the scarf...I guess those two can be combined. Okay, it's going between #80: Why would Frosty the Snowman where a hat - it would just speed up the melting process. The same goes for the scarf and the new #82: And wouldn't the smoke from his pipe just melt him from the inside out?...I think another combination is in order. Now, the new addition is going between #80: Why would Frosty the Snowman where a hat - it would just speed up the melting process. The same goes for the scarf. And wouldn't the smoke from his pipe just melt him from the inside out? and the new new #82: Noam Chomski.
So what is the new addition to List of Things I Don't Understand™, you ask? Why it's simple: The Fifth Amendment. Here it is in all it's Constitutional glory:
Don't get me wrong - it's not all bupkiss. Like the first part ("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"). In layman's terms - you have to be convicted to be punished for a crime, unless you kill Cap'n Crunch during the War of 1812. That little stipulation at the end may or may not be in the process of being abused, that's not for me to say *cough*yes it is*cough*.
The second part is fine, too ("nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"). You can only be puinished once, and Ashley Judd must star in at least one movie with Tommy Lee Jones.
Even the last part is coo' ("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"). You get to keep your land and your crap, unless some dude in Connecticut wants to build a strip mall, in which case you get like twenty bucks or something.
The part that gets me is that little bit in the middle: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." I have never been able to figure that out. I mean, I understand the premise:
Soulless RIAA Vampire Lawyer Guy: Meghan, did you use Kazaa to download "Laffy Taffy" by D4L under the screenname DMB4EVA92345?
Meghan: Like, I plead the fifth. And tri-delts totally rock! We shake our laffy taffy! Candy...
SRIAAVLG: Permission to treat as a hostile witness?
Judge: Granted.
SRIAAVLG pulls out bust of Ronald Reagan and strikes her with it.
So sure, that much makes sense. But does that actually protect you? If I'm on a jury and somebody invokes their right to not self-incriminate, aren't they just admitting they did it? It's like saying "I don't want to answer because then you'd know I totally did it." Unless you don't want to admit you were committing a totally different crime at the time you were accused of committing that other crime. It just doesn't make sense. They should rewrite that part of the amendment to read "any person may choose to indirectly admit to a crime rather than stating it forthwith."
So maybe that's why I'll never be on a jury. The Scooby Gang has informed me that lawyers never want educated jurors, and maybe this is why. If anybody who actually knows what they're talking about can enlighten me, I'll take it off the list. Until then, it is officially a Thing I Don't Understand™. The third amendment, that's one I understand. Damn mooching troops, always asking for Funyuns and putting their feet on my Ikea couch. Go quarter yourself at a Double Tree!
If you're wondering why it took me so long to update, it's because I'm addicted to computer games. I haven't played much since my break started, but World of Warcraft is mighty fun. It was recommended by the Doc who taught me medical interview. So it will be on his conscience if it devours my life.
I'm going to put today's item at slot #81, right between #80: Why would Frosty the Snowman where a hat - it would just speed up the melting process and #82: The same goes for the scarf...I guess those two can be combined. Okay, it's going between #80: Why would Frosty the Snowman where a hat - it would just speed up the melting process. The same goes for the scarf and the new #82: And wouldn't the smoke from his pipe just melt him from the inside out?...I think another combination is in order. Now, the new addition is going between #80: Why would Frosty the Snowman where a hat - it would just speed up the melting process. The same goes for the scarf. And wouldn't the smoke from his pipe just melt him from the inside out? and the new new #82: Noam Chomski.
So what is the new addition to List of Things I Don't Understand™, you ask? Why it's simple: The Fifth Amendment. Here it is in all it's Constitutional glory:
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.
Don't get me wrong - it's not all bupkiss. Like the first part ("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"). In layman's terms - you have to be convicted to be punished for a crime, unless you kill Cap'n Crunch during the War of 1812. That little stipulation at the end may or may not be in the process of being abused, that's not for me to say *cough*yes it is*cough*.
The second part is fine, too ("nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"). You can only be puinished once, and Ashley Judd must star in at least one movie with Tommy Lee Jones.
Even the last part is coo' ("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"). You get to keep your land and your crap, unless some dude in Connecticut wants to build a strip mall, in which case you get like twenty bucks or something.
The part that gets me is that little bit in the middle: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." I have never been able to figure that out. I mean, I understand the premise:
Soulless RIAA Vampire Lawyer Guy: Meghan, did you use Kazaa to download "Laffy Taffy" by D4L under the screenname DMB4EVA92345?
Meghan: Like, I plead the fifth. And tri-delts totally rock! We shake our laffy taffy! Candy...
SRIAAVLG: Permission to treat as a hostile witness?
Judge: Granted.
SRIAAVLG pulls out bust of Ronald Reagan and strikes her with it.
So sure, that much makes sense. But does that actually protect you? If I'm on a jury and somebody invokes their right to not self-incriminate, aren't they just admitting they did it? It's like saying "I don't want to answer because then you'd know I totally did it." Unless you don't want to admit you were committing a totally different crime at the time you were accused of committing that other crime. It just doesn't make sense. They should rewrite that part of the amendment to read "any person may choose to indirectly admit to a crime rather than stating it forthwith."
So maybe that's why I'll never be on a jury. The Scooby Gang has informed me that lawyers never want educated jurors, and maybe this is why. If anybody who actually knows what they're talking about can enlighten me, I'll take it off the list. Until then, it is officially a Thing I Don't Understand™. The third amendment, that's one I understand. Damn mooching troops, always asking for Funyuns and putting their feet on my Ikea couch. Go quarter yourself at a Double Tree!
If you're wondering why it took me so long to update, it's because I'm addicted to computer games. I haven't played much since my break started, but World of Warcraft is mighty fun. It was recommended by the Doc who taught me medical interview. So it will be on his conscience if it devours my life.
posted by Montgomery at 1:48 PM
2 Comments:
Sweet Monty, the Fifth Amendment is your friend. You'll need it one day, trust me. And one example of its use might go as follows: Legal Counsel gets busted for smuggling Conflict Diamonds, and the prosecution calls her adoring bf to testify as a witness. Monty can be charged as an accessory if he admits to his involvement (snuggling the diamonds at night whilst he sleeps, knowing of their origins) so he pleads the Fifth. This alone isn't a confession to a crime he's been charged with, instead it protects him from being charged...and hopefully Legal Counsel walks. So we all win :)
I miss my daily source of Monty and his wildly bizarre tales.
Post a Comment
<< Home