Preamble: I have placed this topic for debate in the Constitutional area because I would prefer for the purposes of debate we all limit ourselves to the constitutional issues involved - not to the issue of whether dog-fighting is right or wrong. We have a rather spirited debate for that in another forum here.
Ok, here we go.....
Having already plead guilty to federal charges, Michael Vick now faces
Virginia state charges over his involvement with the dog-fighting ring to which he plead guilty in federal court. He could face additional prison time and punishment on these state charges. Let's take a look at the US Constitution for a moment. Specifically the Fifth Amendment. You can read it for yourself
here. Or, you can read it here......
QUOTE
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.
The question for debate is.......
Do the additional state charges filed against Michael Vick constitute a violation of his fifth amendment rights not only under double jeopardy, but self-incrimination as well?Aquilla