Which amendments do these statements describe?

[lurk]

Nope, the first time she was convicted it was a miscarriage of justice. She was convicted for a crime that she did not commit, and in this case did not really happen. There are lots of people in this country that have been sent to prison for murders they did not commit and been found to have been innocent after they have served their time. Should each of them get a "Kill someone free" card?

The whole "debt to society" thing is very one way when you think about it. If you are sent to prison for something you did not do and are paying off the debt, then are found to be innocent the state will not say "Sorry, my bad. Here is a big check to make up for it." It just sucks to be you.

That is an important part of why we have the protections for the accused we do in the US, because it is not possible to go back and fix the damage when a mistake is made.

[lurk]

Oh yeah, even in the movie you mentioned she did not actually get to kill her husband in cold blood. Rather the writers set up a situation where his killing was a justifiable act of self-defense. This helped work with the interesting premise for the story to balance the need for justice for the crime committed against Ms. Judd and the moral repugnance of her just shooting him. No matter how you parse the legality of the action it is still morally a murder.