More than a million juvenile suspects are arrested annually and taken into custody. Prior to any confessions or other statements, they must be informed of their Constitutional rights against self-incrimination via Miranda warnings. Juvenile warnings vary in how they are presented (i.e., oral, written, or both) and in their reading levels. Using representative juvenile Miranda warnings, this project is the first to examine how much juveniles understand and apply to their decision-making about whether to exercise their Constitutional rights. The project uses two relevant samples: at-risk youth in juvenile justice alternative education and juvenile detainees in custody. The project also investigates several misconceptions about Miranda warnings that can nullify any rational reasoning about Constitutional protections. For example, many adolescents believe that their silence can be used as incriminating evidence, which might affect their decision whether to talk to police. Two aspects of Miranda misconceptions are studied: (1) their initial beliefs and (2) any improvements as a result of being Mirandized.
This research has far-reaching implications for public policy and appellate court decisions. In 2010, the American Bar Association recognized the national problem of providing juvenile suspects with Miranda warnings they could not understand. This project should assist their initiative for by identifying current problems in the administration of juvenile advisements. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided several cases, which established that juveniles be dealt with differently in light of their maturity and intellectual development. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court directly addressed juvenile Miranda issues, holding that juvenile suspects are not "miniature adults" and that age is relevant in considering the validity of Miranda waivers. The current research will help to inform the state and federal courts regarding the potential provision of additional Miranda protections for juvenile offenders.
