The Bill of Rights- Sixth Amendment

The sixth amendment is mostly agreed upon in most circles. It reads as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This amendment protects citizens from long waits for trial, a "stacked" jury, traveling an unreasonable distance for trial, being charged and not knowing for what, being testified against without the ability to confront his or her accuser; and allows for witnesses of their own; and permits the accused to have a lawyer. Most people think this is generally a good thing. 

The times I see this right imaginarily infringed upon, it is for heinous crimes. The person denying the rights feels that it is justified. Pedophiles should just be taken out back and shot, and have no need for a trial. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, it opens a dangerous can of worms. What if we take the rights of any accused pedophile, rapist, or murderer and throw them under the jail? What about the falsely accused? What about those acts of self defense (in the case of murder)? What about the jealous ex trying to get someone in trouble? We tend to agree that anyone who knowingly falsely accuses someone of rape should then be charged with a crime with equal punishment. If we take away the sixth amendment rights, the falsely accused would be killed or incarcerated under false pretenses. 

For these reasons, the sixth amendment is necessary. I think most of us can live with that. 

The Bill of Rights- The Fifth Amendment

I plead the fifth... do I really understand that?

"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 offense 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."

This one is full of information, and most of it is not debated, but the phrase "I plea the fifth" isn't used properly most of the time. 

Let's take this section by section. 

1. You cannot be held without an indictment, unless there is an extenuating circumstance of war (exception here is for war crimes) or public danger (there's a serial killer on the loose, I think). I am not even clear on the two exceptions myself. I think that it must be the Summer of Sam or a War Crime to supersede the need for a formal indictment or charges. Not all charges require grand jury indictment, but you must formally be charged before being compelled to answer for crimes. We see this in crime shows frequently... they can only hold the perp for 24 hours for questioning before having to cut him loose or charge him. No, Law & Order is not the authority on constitutional law, but it is a reference point for this portion of the Fifth Amendment. 

2. Double Jeopardy- you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. This one I don't quite understand the inner workings. For example, OJ was found not guilty of killing Nicole. Why can he not just admit now that he did and avoid prosecution. Jeopardy is attached to capital crimes such as murder. The state cannot appeal, so he could admit to it without going to prison. So why not just admit it? Did he not do it? Most of the court of public opinion feels he did. I do think that I understand he could be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice, lying under oath, and other such crimes. I do not believe those have the same penalty, though. 

3. This is the part people use incorrectly. "or 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." Witness against himself would indicate that he is guilty. If someone is called as a witness against someone else, it is to testify that someone or something did something wrong. It doesn't say that you can't be compelled to witness for yourself (which you aren't required to do either) but you cannot be forced to admit wrongdoing. Pleading the fifth is not refusing to testify it is refusing to incriminate oneself. 

4. This part means that we (the police, city, state, etc) cannot seize property without just cause. No one can just take the property one owns for use of the state. You must be compensated fairly. 

Think about how you use these phrases. 

Logical Fallacies- Ad Hominem

This logical fallacy is easy to get caught up in. This fallacy is an attack on the character of your opponent rather than the merits of the argument. While I will never say whether I voted Democrat, Independent, or write in candidate in the last presidential election, it is a well known fact that I did not vote for Donald Trump. The reasons that I don't think he is the right candidate are almost all related to his character. That said, even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes. He may come up with a plan that has value and merit. He hasn't, in my opinion, as of yet, but that's not the point of this.

If I am debating with someone, for instance, Donald Trump, and I am opposed to his argument, or his stance, I cannot challenge his character as a good reason to be against this argument. For example, if he says that homosexuals should be married in civil ceremonies only, and I want to oppose that, I can't say that's a stupid plan because you're a womanizer who cheats on his wife, therefore you have no authority. His marital sexual escapades have no bearing on your knowledge of the law, constitutionality, nor feasibility of your plan. Let's face it, Bill Clinton was somewhat similar in his alleged escapades, and we let him stay president. Donald Trump has suffered the same allegations, it doesn't matter in terms of the argument at hand.

It's easy to attack a conservative or a liberal for holding beliefs you do not like. It is also easy to shut out a solution simply because you do not like the author of the solution. That is 99% of the issues in the US today. We don't like the other side, so we don't want to meet half way. IF you want your argument to be valid, refrain from attacking the other side's character. Attack, instead, the other side's argument.

The Bill of Rights- The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This one, most people seem to agree on, for the most part. People do not want to be randomly searched, and they agree, generally that this is bad. There was a policy, I believe in NY, several years ago that met with controversy— stop and frisk. Many people were on board with stop and frisk, because it could prevent crimes from occurring. I don't know the statistics on this, so that is not what I am debating. The fact is, regardless of the effectiveness, it violates the constitution. It is unreasonable to search an individual walking down the street. The amendment says that citizens cannot be searched, nor their property taken by law enforcement without a warrant. We can't search people because we want to, we think they don't belong in an area, or it might stop a crime. We have to follow the constitution and obtain a warrant. There is the exception of probable cause. If an officer stops someone and they are truly acting suspicious or if they feel there is probable cause that a crime is occurring, they may be permitted to search you anyway. This is where the word unreasonable comes into play. Unreasonable means that you cannot be searched willy-nilly, but you may be searched if there is a good reason. If you appear to be hiding something or trying to obstruct the officer's view of something, you may be searched. 

An officer may not enter your home and search it. They may not stop you on a traffic stop and just search you. They must a.) ask permission or b.) have probable cause. If an officer knocks on my door tonight and asks me if he can search my home, I am well within my constitutional right to say no. That said, the officer will often attempt to get a warrant at that point, making the search legal. However, if he has no justifiable reason, a warrant would be conceivably more difficult to obtain. The same is true for a traffic stop or for being stopped while walking down the street. 

No one wants to be unnecessarily searched, and the constitution protects that. 

Logical Fallacies- False Cause

One of the hardest fallacies to recognize is the false cause. So, what is a false cause? This is when people assume that two things are related that may or may not be, they just have commonality. Just because two things happen in close proximity (either in space or time), it does not mean they are related. For example, a study a few years ago said that women with PCOS were more likely to have a child with Autism. There were a few problems with this study, but the major problem was that it was small scale, and only looked at one factor PCOS. Not every child with Autism was born to a mother with PCOS and not every mother with PCOS bore a child with Autism. The study took place in only one country. This may mean that there are environmental factors, rather than physiological ones. The factors were not researched. The commonality of both conditions was cited. Just because many women with PCOS have children with Autism, doesn't mean that is a risk factor. It may be entirely independent of what causes Autism. People have searched for years for reasons Autism exists. 

It doesn't really matter for this post WHAT causes Autism, but it matters that the link isn't solid. The fallacy here is assuming that because two things exist in close proximity that one must be the cause of the other. 

A hypothetical example would be that the majority of mass murders happen in the South (I made that up and don't know if that is even remotely true), therefore since the South is warmer with more humidity, the people are more likely to kill. Well, it may be warmer and more humid, which can certainly make people miserable, but that doesn't mean that heat/ humidity creates killers. There are other factors to consider. Do these Southern mass murderers have other things in common? Race, socioeconomic status, gender, psychopathy, sociopathy? What caused the psychopathy/ sociopathy? Was that genetic or due to the environment of the killers? Simply assuming two things are related doesn't make them so. They may happen in the same span of time or with the same frequency, but that does not mean that one causes the other. 

Often I see this with the violence debate. People often debate that violent video games cause violent behavior, but many studies have shown just the opposite. Here, here, here, and here are articles in mass media that contradict that. I know you can find many articles that say it's true, but it really isn't clear, and is often a false cause. We are linking two things together that aren't necessarily related. Gun violence isn't necessarily related to video game violence. If it were we would have more issues throughout the world. Many other countries actually spend more on violent video games and play them more frequently, but are not seeing mass murders. It may be the cause. I don't know. What I do know is current research doesn't support this, and we can't assume that because two things happen at the same time, or even together, that one causes the other. 

That is the false cause fallacy or the fallacy of cause. 

Logical Fallacies- Argument of fallacy

This is an interesting one that I see from time to time. This fallacy hinges on a previous fallacy. Claiming someone's claim is wrong just because the argument contains a fallacy does not make the claim wrong. I realize that there are currently people who believe that the Earth is flat, but all evidence I have tells me that it is round. Now, if I argue that the world is round because only idiots believe otherwise, it's a bad argument, but not necessarily untrue that the world is round. I have attacked my opponents character, but I have not proven that the initial claim. Scientifically speaking, it may be a proven fact. It may be frustrating to me that people deny and doubt science. That does not mean that my argument that contains a fallacy is inherently false.

Some people will say that since I said something that was logically false (only idiots believe...) that my whole argument is wrong. You may have a harder time believing my claim when I use logical fallacies, but that doesn't make it untrue. I am guilty of this sometimes as well. If I see someone unable to form a coherent sentence trying to tell me something about language, I won't believe them until I hear it from a more credible source. I sometimes make grammar mistakes, even as a person with a master's degree in English, but I try to at least sound coherent. We need to stop and argue credibility rather than false claim when an argument contains a fallacy already. Rather than say that the world is flat because my claim that only idiots believe it is flat is a fallacy and therefore it cannot be round, we need to say that because the claim contains a fallacy, a new argument must be made without a fallacy. The argument is weakened due to the fallacy.

The Bill of Rights- The Third Amendment

The third amendment reads as follows: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

This amendment is not debated often, but as a scholar, it is still important to understand what it means. This amendment is the one that sort of gives us the right not to house soldiers if we do not wish to do so. 

This amendment was included because the people did not want the government imposing on them and forcing them to quarter soldiers. This is great, but carefully read the final phrase—but in a manner prescribed by law. This gives the possibility to force us to quarter soldiers, but there must also be a law in place. I don't know if there is a current law, but it is also possible to create a law in time of need. We have not had a domestic war since the Civil War, and have had very few domestic attacks that lead to war. This doesn't mean that we couldn't be required to at some point, but it is not likely that we would have a need to house a soldier any time soon. Should it become feasible, I am sure that this will be a hot button issue.