MIRANDA WARNING COMPREHENSION AMONG ADOLESCENTS
MIRANDA WARNING
The Miranda warning in the United States is a rule of law that requires law enforcement officers to inform individuals that are in their custody that they have certain rights afforded to them that protect them from self-incriminating.
As such, suspects in police custody have the “right to remain silent” during police questioning and they have the right to the “presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Law enforcement agents are also required to inform suspects of their rights before the individuals statements can be used against them in court during a trial. Suspects may exercise their rights at any point during a police interrogation and they may also voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive their rights if they choose to.
A Miranda warning typically reads as follows:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court. With these rights in mind, are you still willing to talk to me about the charges against you?”
MIRANDA COMPREHENSION
Comprehension of ones rights is essential if one is to knowingly and intelligently waive them, a notion which makes Miranda comprehension among juveniles an important concern for clinical psychologists. However, many factors may influence an adolescents understanding of their rights, such as their age and IQ.
Research suggests that individuals under the age of 13 and those with IQ levels of 70 and below, often have difficulty in comprehending their Miranda rights. Research also suggests that special education tends to be a mediating factor that influences Miranda comprehension among adolescents.
YOUTH CASE STUDY: R. v. L.T.H. (2008)
L.T.H. was charged with dangerous driving which caused bodily harm to another individual. After the incident during a police interrogation, law enforcement agents read L.T.H. a waiver of rights form which L.T.H. voluntarily signed after stating that he understood what was being read to him.
In signing the document, the youth surrendered his right to counsel and his right to remain silent to police questioning and he voluntarily spoke to police about the incident alone, without the presence of a guardian or attorney.
In appeals court, the presiding judge concluded that the statements made by L.T.H. to police were inadmissible in court because L.T.H. had a learning disability. In this case the judge did not believe that L.T.H. fully understood the warning or the gravity of the situation.
According to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), a Miranda warning should consider the young person’s level of sophistication as well as their individual characteristics. It should also be conveyed in an appropriate language to ensure a full understanding of the warning by the young person. In the case of L.T.H., these recommendations were not met.
MURKY WATER
Things can get a bit murky when police interrogate adolescents because youth may feel obligated to submit to authority figures even when they are not actually in police custody. In such situations, the adolescent may inadvertently give up their right to silence without knowing it and they may provide police with self-incriminating evidence. For instance, police do not have to issue a Miranda warning when an individual is not being arrested or detained, yet information that the individual provides can still be used by the police to arrest an individual. As such, individuals may unknowingly provide police with information that leads to their own arrest. I’ll illustrate this with an example:
An adolescents gets called down to the principal’s office at the high school that they attend. When they get there, they find that a police officer is with the principle and he states that he is going to ask the adolescents a few questions. In this case the adolescent is NOT in police custody so the officer does not have to issue a Miranda warning. In this case, the adolescent has the right to silence and also the right to leave the room at any time. However, the youth may not realize this and they may feel pressured by the two authority figures (officer & Principal) to talk to the police. In this case the adolescent may talk to the officer and inadvertently give them information that the officer uses to arrest the adolescent. At the point the adolescent is arrested and the police officer reads him his Miranda warning.
In the above example the adolescent probably felt pressured to talk to the police because they are a powerful authority figure and they probably didn’t realize that they could walk out of the room at any point. By talking to the police, the adolescent provided information that lead to their own arrest.
CONCLUSION
Adolescents tend to be much more vulnerable on measures of cognitive development and maturity when compared to their adult counterparts. For that reason I think it is important for clinical psychologist’s to continue to study Miranda comprehension and police interrogation tactics for adolescents especially those with intellectual disabilities and exceptions. I believe that such research would be valuable in creating sound practices regarding Miranda waiver forms. I believe that it is important that young individuals fully understand their rights and that vulnerable individuals are protected against risky interrogation practices that are beyond their scope of comprehension.
Thanks For Reading
References:
Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie, L. O., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. L. (2003). Juvenile offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment, 10(4), 359-369. Doi: 10.1177/1073191103259535.
Helibrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2016). APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
R. v. L.T.H., (2008) SCC 49.