Miranda Warnings: Challenges for Young Defendants

By Miranda Gonzalez

If you have ever watched a crime show, you have probably heard the police say "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” These words are not just Hollywood trope, but actually a key embodiment of the Fifth Amendment. Under the Fifth Amendment, people are guaranteed protections in criminal cases against them, including protections against self-incrimination. In the landmark 1966 case, Miranda vs. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that when a person is in custody and being interrogated, the police must warn them of these rights. Such a warning has been labeled a Miranda warning, and the goal is to prevent police from using coercive tactics to compel confessions.

Although you might be familiar with these words, questions arise when it comes to whether people actually understand their significance. Although you as a competent adult might understand your rights, do you think that all adults and kids in the United States fully understand the Miranda warning? With youth specifically, there are questions about both comprehension of their rights and ability to protect such rights during interrogations. Scholars such as Grisso (1996) call this ability into question as justice-involved adolescents lack the age, maturity, and criminal justice experiences to have high-quality legal decision-making skills.

The article ​Reasoning Your Way out of Miranda Rights: How Juvenile Detainees Relinquish Their Fifth Amendment Protections​ by Sharf et al. (2017) tested these questions. Researchers gave 245 youth who were invovled with the justice system a mock-crime scenario which had participants picture themselves as a suspect who was being questioned under accusation of stealing a neighbor’s watch. After hearing the warning, participants were given the opportunity to invoke or waive their Miranda rights. They then answered questions about their reasoning for waving or using their Miranda rights and verbal intelligence.

As expected, most teenagers did not invoke their Miranda rights and their reasoning for waiving their rights did not fully consider the long-term consequences of their decision. Many of the teenagers were afraid that exercising their rights would make them look guilty to the officers – nearly half (45%) were afraid of deciding to remain silent and a third (29%) were afraid of asking for an attorney. Looking at the responses more holistically, the researchers found that adolescents focused more on short-term consequences (59%), such as displeasing the police officer (31%), than long-term consequences (41%), such as increasing the likelihood of conviction (14%). Participants who were younger or had lower verbal intelligence were more likely to waive their rights and confess, increasing their vulnerability in legal proceedings.

Ultimately, this study highlights a critical issue in our justice system—one that leaves many youth vulnerable during police interrogations because they do not fully understand the implications of not invoking their Miranda rights.Despite receiving the same Miranda warnings as adults, it has been proven that adolescents often lack age, maturity, and verbal intelligence to make high-quality decisions. Moreover, the common misconceptions of the legal system within this demographic are yet another factor that negatively impacts the legal process of these young individuals. As stated by Sharf and colleagues said, “If juveniles believe remaining silent may hurt rather than help their cases, why exercise this right at all?” (2017, p. 128). The findings in this experiment highlight the urgent need for not only appropriate juvenile Miranda warnings but also improved legal education for minors. Enhancing their legal knowledge is a step towards the protection of youth’s constitutional rights and ensuring fairness and justice for all.