We have heard all our life about someone "taking the Fifth" so that they aren't required to give testimony against themselves in court. But I believe that according to the way the Amendment is written, people have literally been getting away with murder and the courts illegally allow it to happen.
The amendment is divided into three parts. The first part pertains to military justice.
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;
Atrocities happen during times of war. We've heard of soldiers torturing civilians and killing them. This angers people and demands justice. In this case, military justice is the prescribed method to administer criminal court decisions.
Allowing the World Court to decide the fates of American soldiers is wrong. If some soldiers in Iraq were to accidentally kill a family of noncombatants while going after the enemy, instead of having them tried in the court of public opinion or by an angry member of Congress, a general court marshal hearing should be held to decide what type of punishment, if any, should be administered. If the family happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, their deaths might have been purely accidental. The soldiers shouldn't be charged with a capital offense. Instead, they might spend time in confinement if they didn't take precautions that might have avoided the tragedy. They might even be discharged. But if there was no way to prevent the killings because the target hid in the midst of the family so that he could shoot at the soldiers, then the case should be dismissed. The soldiers were doing their duty as soldiers.
Since our government also wants to have good PR, if possible, if a family member or two manages to survive, they should receive payment as our way of apologizing. It's a good thing we weren't doing that during WW II or else the costs for the war might have doubled due to unintentional suffering and death payments.
But if a soldier is off-duty and happens to kill a civilian, he should be tried in a civilian court but have a military lawyer defending him. Whatever the punishment, it should be administered by either a neutral court or the civilian court with military cooperation. Angry people who hate Americans could "accidentally" hurt or kill the soldier being held. It would be best if he were incarcerated in a military prison for a period that doesn't exceed what has been prescribed by the court but not so short a period that the people who demanded justice are outraged.
I'll save the second part of the amendment for last since it is so controversial. The third part of the amendment states:
Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Supreme Court decided with the Kelo v. City of New London decision on June 23, 2005 by a 5 to 4 vote that cities had the right to take private property for public use without just compensation if it were for the good of the community and community needs outweighed those of the private citizen. This was an expansion of the right government entities had to condemn property and acquire it for public use. This happened during the Depression when the TVA condemned property in the South for TVA projects that provided cheaper electricity to the region but flooded people's property.
Since FDR was willing to take money from the taxpayers to compensate others, I'm sure the people affected weren't left homeless. But with the later decision by the Court, if people are evicted from their property because they refused to accept a purchase offer made by a community, if it is not just compensation, it is illegal to remove the property owner from his property. If a house on two acres is situated near where a community wants to expand a park or construct a hospital and the fair market value is $2 million, the owner must not be offered half that much in order to move. It is not just compensation and after the improvements are made, the land itself may increase in value to $3 million. The property owner should be made aware of this and be allowed to receive the full value of the property he is being forced to vacate.
