for, in such a case, his life or limb cannot judicially be said to have been put in jeopardy.[1]
§ 1782. The next clause prohibits any person from being compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, or being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This also is but an affirmance of a common law privilege. But it is of inestimable value. It is well known, that in some countries, not only are criminals compelled to give evidence against themselves, but are subjected to the rack or torture in order to procure a confession of guilt. And what is worse, it has been (as if in mockery or scorn) attempted to excuse, or justify it, upon the score of mercy and humanity to the accused. It has been contrived, (it is pretended,) that innocence should manifest itself by a stout resistance, or guilt by a plain confession; as if a man's innocence were to be tried by the hardness of his constitution, and his guilt by the sensibility of his nerves.[2] Cicero, many ages ago,[3] though he lived in a state, wherein it w as usual to put slaves to the torture, in order to furnish evidence, has denounced the absurdity and wickedness of the measure in terms of glowing eloquence, as striking, as they are brief. They are conceived in the spirit of Tacitus, and breathe all his pregnant and indignant sarcasm.[4] Ulpian, also, at a still later period in Roman jurisprudence, stamped the practice with severe reproof.[5]
- ↑ See United States v. Haskell, 4 Wash. Cir. R. 402, 410; United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. R, 579; Hawk. P. C., B. 2, ch. 35, § 8; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 305; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 10, p. 132, 133.
- ↑ 4 Black. Comm. 326; 3 Wilson's Law Lect. 154 to 159.
- ↑ Cicero, Pro Sulla, 28.
- ↑ Mr. Justice Blackstone quotes them in 4 Black. Comm. 326; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 304, 305; Rutherforth, Inst. B. 1, ch. 18, § 5.
- ↑ See 3 Wilson's Law Lect. 158; 1 Gilb. Hist. 249.
