The Amendments

Amendments
Name
Institution
Date

Abstract
This paper analyzes two constitutional amendments, the second and the fifth amendment.The second amendment broadly gives directives on citizen’s rights to bear arms. The fifth amendment protects the citizen from overzealous courts that may end up issuing hasty but inaccurate convictions, and also gives the citizen some degree of protection of their property from government seizure.The historical context of the two amendments is similar as they were part of the first ten amendments to the bill of rights. The paper first considers this historical context and then proceeds to analyze the rights enshrined in the amendment. The next sections then consider the implications of these legislations to the criminal justice system. The second and the fifth amendment were both officially included into the constitution in 1791. They have been implemented for more than two centuries. The changing social and political contexts have warrantied frequent revision of these amendments. Also, their application to many different judicial processes over time has fostered a better understanding of the amendments and their shortfalls. Sample cases are included to illustrate this advancement in understanding of the amendments.
Amendments
The Second Amendment
The second amendment was proposed for consideration as a useful addition to the legal framework of the United States of America’s legal framework under the umbrella legislation of the Bill of Rights.

The second amendment guarantees the citizen’s rights to carry firearms. James Madison crafted the second amendment and proposed it in 1789.Consequently, James Madison was synonymous with “the pioneer of the Bill of Rights.” The second amendment has its origins in the colonial era when the Patriots sought secession from British rule. The efforts of the British government to impose an arms embargo on its American colony were met with protests from the Patriots on account of provisions for self-defense from the Common Law.The second amendment, being one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15th, 1791. All these amendments are now included in the constitution under the bill of rights.
The circumstances surrounding the proposal of the second amendment for legislation and ultimately its ratification were extremely delicate. English settlers occupied the United States, and the Common Law was a source of law for most courts, in keeping with the English tradition. The same law was exercised over the British colony of America. Under the Common Law, the citizens are provided with a right to defend themselves against an enemy by bearing arms. This legislation was the premise of the Patriot’s claim to a right to arm themselves when the British government sought to take away their firearms. After the American Revolution, there was a period of endless national, whose subject was the capacity of the governed people to fight governmental tyranny.The American Revolution had seen the Patriots rebel against the British government and claim their right to defend themselves. Therefore, the need for the citizens to have the capacity to protect themselves was real on account of their recent historical context. Therefore, arming citizens was a prophylactic measure in case such a situation arose in future. Moreover, arms regulation is premised on the issues that best serve the public good and not on matters of liberty, freedom or precedents set by prior restraint CITATION Cha l 2057 (Charles, 2012). It seems appropriate that arms carried outside the house were legal in such events as militia activity which served a security role CITATION Cha l 2057 (Charles, 2012).
The ratification of the second amendment was a unanimous agreement with little controversy at the time. However, at present, the social and political situations that prompted the inclusion of the second amendment are not common. Therefore, the language of the original second amendment allows for a very broad scope of interpretation today as the relevance of the legislation is also being established. For instance, the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is interpreted to imply a constitutional right for an individual citizen in the United States. The extrapolation of this interpretation implies that any form of prohibition and restriction on arms is unconstitutional since it infringes on the rights of citizens.
The rights contained within the amendment include a right to possess a firearm and a guarantee that the state or federal government shall not infringe on this right. The right to own firearms, in the language at the time of the ratification of the amendment, was seen as a citizen’s guarantee against tyranny. The guarantee that the government would not interfere implies a partnership between the administration and the citizens on matters of security.
The second amendment has great implication for the Criminal Justice System since firearms have applications on both crime and crime control. The second amendment is responsible for controlling the use of firearms and ensuring the balance between freedom and oversight of guns is optimal to allow maximum security for all. The second amendment distinguishes legal handling of firearms from the illegal, and its incorrect interpretation may be a source of conflict. For example, originally, the second amendment allowed individuals near-total control on the handling of firearms. At a time when tyranny was a threat to the people, such an amendment was crucial to the protection of freedom and preservation of liberties. The state did not have to invest so much in security since the citizens themselves handled a huge part of their security.
With continued revision, gun control has become much tighter within the homes and outside, in public spaces. However, spreading the scope of the second amendment to increase gun control measures by the state causes a conflict between individual and society’s interests CITATION Cha l 2057 (Charles, 2012). This conflict arises because, on the one hand, the control of arms may seem like an infringement on the basic rights of an individual as guaranteed by the Constitution while on the other, it makes the society much safer. Therefore, it seems like a sacrifice of the rights of an individual for the good of the society. However, this is only a challenging contemporary issue since the historical context of gun control clearly shows that the presence of guns within society gave the people a right to stand up even to a government that was not in their interest.
A better understanding of the second amendment is facilitated by instances in which the principles of justice enshrined in the amendment were interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The cases that exhibit this doctrine include the cases of the United States against Cruikshank and the United States against Miller.In the court proceedings of the United States vs. Cruikshank in 1876, the Supreme Court declared that the right of the citizens to bear arms was not issued by the constitution. The defendants, white men, had killed sixty black men. The verdict was that the limitation on firearms control only applied to the federal government and state action but could not be applied to individual action. Also, the rights were deemed to exist outside of the Constitution and were not applicable to the plaintiffs. As a result, the white men were acquitted.
In the 1939 case of United States vs. Miller, the federal government, and the state were given the mandate of gun control. The two bodies could declare what guns were pertinent to citizen safety and therefore allowed in the hands of civilians, and which ones were not commensurate with the personal defense agenda. For instance, in this case, the shotgun was outlawed in the hands of civilians except under special conditions.
The second amendment has seen a historical revolution. The scope of the amendment has changed from the protection of the right to have firearms in the home to a right to carry concealed firearms in public CITATION Cha l 2057 (Charles, 2012). The challenge in the implementation of the freedom to carry firearms in public riots now is that there is an increased social cost. In the past, the technology could only afford as few as two deaths per minute in using handguns in riots. This is way smaller than the twelve to forty-eight that can be killed by the advanced weaponry and skill of today CITATION Cha l 2057 (Charles, 2012). Regulation of firearms is, therefore, a greater issue today than it was in previous years.
The Fifth Amendment
The fifth amendment is especially focussed on the elements of the procedural law. It details some fundamental rights of the accused in court proceedings. The fifth amendment was proposed under the legislative umbrella of the Bill of Rights by James Madison. James Madison introduced the fifth amendments as one of the first ten amendments enshrined in the bill of rights. The fifth amendment was passed by Congress in 1789 and was ratified on December 15th, 1791
The fifth amendment has its roots in the perceived excesses of the courts and a consequent need to protect the citizens against this phenomenon. The conviction processes of the criminal justice systems were ineffective at separating the guilty from the innocent. Traditionally, the courts used an inquisitorial method of truth-seeking that was perceived as unjust because the prosecution could force confessions out of the accused and that was enough to qualify guilt. This inquisitorial approach makes it very easy to convict anyone, even the innocent suspects. This method is different from the prosecutorial one where the court has the burden of proof. In this approach, guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence presented to the court. In such a system, few innocent people will be convicted, and human dignity will be preserved for everyone.
The fifth amendment grants five major constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, prohibitions on double jeopardy, prohibitions on self-incrimination, a guarantee of a fair trial to all and a protection of private property from government seizure. The provision for grand juries demands that a well-selected jury should be present during the hearing on capital crimes to prevent any injustice that may arise from the overzealousness of the prosecution. The jury, during the presentment, can issue their verdict on the guilt or innocence of the accused. The prohibition on double jeopardy is a safeguard against courts being vindictive because convicts seek a retrial. On this grounds, a convict cannot be given a more dire sentence unless the court and the prosecution prove that they have sufficient cause for the judgment. The prohibition on self-incrimination protects suspects from improper interrogation CITATION Mac16 l 2057 (Maclin, 2016). However, it does not give one the right to refuse to totally cooperate with the police or prosecution and is waived the moment an individual agrees to testify as a witness. The provision of fairness to all is enshrined in the requirement for the due process to be adhered to in all court cases. This procedural approach to a case ensures that every citizen receives a fair opportunity to prove their innocence. The just compensation clause protects private property from being seized by the government. In this clause, in the event that the government has to confiscate property, the owner must be compensated with an amount equal to the fair market value of the property.
The fifth amendment has a significant impact on the criminal justice system since it dictates much of the procedure around court hearings, evidence collection, and court rulings. The amendment addresses the concerns of citizens who are disadvantaged in dealing with the criminal justice system. The fifth amendment ensures that this system is a level playing field for all and the citizens can have confidence in the systems’ ability to uphold justice across the board. The grand juries and the prohibition on double jeopardy are safeguards against biases that may arise within the court systems. These checks in place ensure that the dispensation of justice is constant. The prohibition on self-incrimination gives the defendants a fighting chance by guarding them against the use of underhand tactics such as being arm-strong into giving a confession. A guarantee of a fair trial for all and the protection of private property from being seized by the government preserves the people’s dignity.
Also, the fifth amendment has much implication for the criminal justice system simply because it has been accepted into the legal framework. All inferences made from it are considered constitutional. One such inference is the verdict on the death penalty. Just because the fifth amendment contemplates the death penalty makes the proponents of the death penalty propose that the penalty is constitutional.
In many cases, the interpretation of the amendments by the Supreme Court of the United States stipulated much more clearly the meaning and scope of the legislations.CITATION Kea82 l 2057 (Keating, 1982). For example, in the case of Bullington v. Missouri, the supreme court applied the double jeopardy clause to a criminal sentence for the first time. The charge leveled against Bullington by the state was that of capital murder, with an impending sentence of either being sentenced to die or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole CITATION Kea82 l 2057 (Keating, 1982). The jury issued a life imprisonment, but Bullington successfully pushed for a retrial. Although the state sought the death penalty on the retrial, the Supreme Court overruled this request because the state could not impose a sentence on Bullington which it had not found sufficient grounds to do so in the first instance. In this case, the verdict issued by the Supreme Court illustrates that conviction of a suspect on one account automatically protects him from convictions on the same crime with more severe consequences on other accounts at a retrial. Instead, the retrial is now a test for the court and the plaintiff to prove that there was sufficient ground o warrant the sentence imposed on the defendant.
In support of the edict, the fourteenth amendment demands that a judge should explicitly state on record his reason for imposing a more severe punishment at the retrial. This provision guards against judicial vindictiveness CITATION Kea82 l 2057 (Keating, 1982). Protection against the jury is offered in the clause that demands the circumstances under which the jury issues a more severe punishment on retrial to be proved to be independent of the influence of the first conviction and vindictiveness to be ruled out as a motive for the jury. The protection of the defendant by the double jeopardy clause is dependent on the fact that the burden of proof on the prosecution is to reasonably high standards. Lowering these standards takes away the protection by this clause.

References
BIBLIOGRAPHY Charles, P. J. (2012). The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home: History versus Ahistorical Standards of Review. Cleveland State Law Review, 60(1), 1-56.
Keating, P. J. (1982). Fifth Amendment, Double Jeopardy in Capital Sentencing, Bullington vs. Missouri. Akron Law Review, 15(2), 397-409.
Maclin, T. (2016). The Right To Silence V. The Fifth Amendment. Public Law & Legal Theory Paper No. 16-09. Boston University School of Law.