Self-Incrimination & The Sandusky Verdict

Most people are familiar with the term “pleading the fifth”
which refers to the self-incrimination clause of the 5^th Amendment. The most recent and controversial example of this is in the
Jerry Sandusky trial, in which the defense opted out of putting Sandusky
on the stand. But where did this idea come from? And in what way, if any,
did this affect the outcome of the Sandusky trial?

In the late 1400s, torturing and forcing confessions was common practice
under the Court of Star Chamber in England. The main reasoning behind
this was to seek out religious dissenters whose beliefs differed from
those of the state-sanctioned Church of England. Specifically the Court
tended to target Puritans and would coerce them into admitting they did
not agree with the Church of England.

This type of coercion, referred to as truth-seeking, continued into the
1600s. Even though public opposition to this method grew over the years,
it wasn’t until 1638 that someone chose to take action. John Lilburne
was put on trial for printing and distributing Puritan literature that
was not approved by the government in England. After being arrested, Lilburne
refused to take the ‘oath ex officio’—a promise to answer
all questions asked truthfully without even knowing the charges or evidence—and
was consequently tortured and imprisoned for many years in an effort to
obtain a confession.

Mainly as a result of this type of mistreatment that Puritans suffered
in England, the concept of being free from self-incrimination became common
law in America prior to the existence of the US Constitution. It was this
mistreatment combined with the desire for addition protection of individual
rights that led to the inclusion of the self-incrimination clause in the 5^th Amendment, which was ratified in December of 1791.

So what about the Sandusky verdict? This much is clear: Sandusky did not
testify, and he was found guilty on 45 of the 48 counts brought against
him. But did the former cause the latter? Absolutely not. Choosing not
to testify is a constitutional right, and exercising that right does not
imply an admission of guilt. If, on the other hand, Sandusky had chosen
to testify, it would have caused more harm than good. The prosecution
would have slaughtered him; they would have twisted the things he said
to work to their advantage. The jury would have read into every time his
voice cracked or he cleared his throat; every time he shifted in his seat
or looked down at the ground; every time he mumbled or paused while answering.

Though the outcome was unfavorable for the defense, the utilization of
Sandusky’s 5^th Amendment right not to testify was the right decision.