Waiving Rights, Risking Futures: How Racial and Developmental Dynamics Determine Waiver Decisions

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law | 2023, Vol. 29, No. 3, 320–335.

A Critical Discussion of Youth Miranda Waivers, Racial Inequity, and Proposed Policy Reforms

Sydney Baker- Department of Psychology, Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York

Kamar Y. Tazi- Department of Psychology, Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York

Emily Haney-Caron - Department of Psychology, The University of North Texas

Courts often assume that youth and adult suspects are equally capable of making decisions about whether to talk to police officers—decisions that carry serious long-term consequences. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that prior to custodial interrogation, police officers must remind suspects of their rights to silence and legal counsel, and a suspectmust waive their rights “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” for police to continue questioning. This legal standard was extended to youth without affording them additional protections, despite decades of research on adolescent cognitive and socioemotional development demonstrating that youth have inherent difficulties understanding and appreciating their Miranda rights. Navigating interrogation situations is likely even more challenging for youth of color, who not only face disadvantages due to their developmental immaturity, but also systemic racism within the legal system. As biased police practices put youth of color at a higher risk of police contact, it is especially important to consider how adolescent development and racial bias interact to impact youths’ ability to make valid Miranda waivers. Researchers and legal advocates have made multiple youth interrogation reform recommendations, but many of these recommendations fall short by failing to take into full account the impact of adolescent development and racial bias on youths’ ability to navigate interrogation. This paper analyzes proposals for reform through a developmental and racial equity lens and makes recommendations about future research needed to determine the most effective way to protect youth during interrogation.

Miranda waiver, adolescent development, racial equity, juvenile justice

"Despite substantial psycho-legal research on Miranda waivers—the decision to waive the rights to silence and/or counsel—virtually no empirical works have approached youth Miranda waivers from an equity perspective. …[This review] is intended as an interdisciplinary review of salient research findings and a novel discussion of policy changes—including potential contributions and limitations—aimed at addressing the problems associated with youth Miranda practices" (p. 320).

"Over 90% of youth waive their Miranda rights, which can have dire consequences… This paper is informed by the perspective that youth waiving their rights without the presence of an attorney is always harmful. Due to a wealth of factors discussed in detail in subsequent sections, adolescents are not equipped to make complex legal decisions—especially those that relinquish their rights—without guidance… we believe that, at the very least, advice and guidance from an attorney are crucial during youth interrogation…

…For non-Black youth of color, virtually no theories or research exist about how race and racial bias may impact the Miranda process… Despite this limitation, racially and ethnically based injustices likely impact all persons of color (Black and non-Black)" (p. 321).

"The Court's lack of explicit recognition that developmental immaturity should be considered when assessing Miranda validity stands in stark contrast to the body of research demonstrating that the skills necessary to understand and appreciate Miranda warnings exceed youths' developmental capabilities…

… Juvenile-specific warnings are often longer than general warnings, which contributes to reduced comprehensibility. [Research] found that almost half (44.2%) of the juvenile warnings they surveyed were at least 225 words long. This is problematic given that after roughly 1 min, youth forget about two-thirds of the ideas they were read" (p. 322). 

"Despite the Court permitting equal treatment of adults and youth in police custody, developmental immaturity puts youth at risk of compromised comprehension of their rights and, therefore, compromised legal decision-making … Research on adolescent cognitive and socioemotional functioning supports the finding that youth have developmental constraints on their abilities to comprehend and make decisions regarding Miranda waivers... Normative development puts kids at risk when making decisions to navigate procedures in the criminal legal system" (p. 323).

"For Black youth, waiver decisions are likely heavily impacted by racial inequity…From an equity perspective, racial identity—and associated experiences of racial bias—may play a salient role for youth of color. As Black youth experience and witness disproportionate levels of police violence, they often experience fear and distrust of police officers" (p. 325).

"...Youth of color are disproportionately subjected to policing in their communities and therefore are at a profoundly greater risk of facing arrest and interrogation… This targeting has been attributed to problematic police practices including stop-and-frisk and zero tolerance, which have contributed to the considerable legal mistreatment of persons of color…

…Native American youth with system involvement describe that police officers give them fewer chances than White youth and that they experience unnecessary use of force more often than White youth. Continuously witnessing discriminatory policing practices shapes how youth of color come to view the legal system as illegitimate, thereby reducing the desire to comply with police; reflective of a vicious cycle, 'policing happens to youth of Color regardless of delinquency, and that policing then creates delinquency among youth, which is then policed'" (p. 326).

"Critical race realism offers a path forward for beginning to view impact as a critical stage of the research process. We hope that this article can provide a first step in pushing the field in that direction and that, ultimately, the work of the research community and legal stakeholders together—informed by the deep knowledge of impacted youth and parents—will develop more effective, equitable solutions than we currently have available…. any protections that can reduce the number of youth being interrogated will protect youth of color" (p. 329).

"In light of youths' profound developmental limitations in navigating interrogations and making sound legal decisions by themselves, scholars and legal organizations have called for reforms in the youth interrogation process to better protect adolescents…" (p. 326).

Videotaping:

"Researchers have purported that the mandatory videotaping of interrogations would help courts more effectively determine if Miranda waivers are made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily….. Although videotaping interrogations may be a promising way to reduce police officer misconduct during interrogation, it would not fully protect youth from invalid waivers nor allow for a thorough examination of the validity of waivers, especially for youth of color…

Interested Adult:

… As a mechanism to account for youths' developmental capacity, several states have enacted an "interested adult" rule, which requires that youth have the opportunity to consult with some important adult (e.g., parent, legal guardian) prior to an interrogation…Although more research in this area is needed to determine the impact of parent advice on youths' decision-making abilities, extant literature is clear that relying on parents to protect youth during interrogations is inadequate" (p. 327- 328).

Required Defense:

"... perhaps adolescents would be best protected if the presence of a defense attorney were required prior to youth interrogation... Given that the youngest youth are most vulnerable to making invalid waivers, researchers have proposed that attorney presence be required for youth 15 and under… It is [vital] that jurisdictions that require the presence of an attorney take steps to ensure racial equity, such as documenting the frequency of waiver by youth race and evaluating trial outcomes to determine whether quality of representation differs by race" (p. 328- 329).

Future Research:

"Future research in interrogations among youth should develop a focus on increasing equity and protecting youth in interrogations and waivers…" (p. 329)

Call for Adaptations:

"The American Bar Association and several psycho-legal researchers have called for adaptations of Miranda warnings for children and adolescents….To date, only one study in the United States, which is dated, has directly compared youths' comprehension of traditional Miranda warnings to their comprehension of simplified warnings…, the results suggest that youth, simply due to their young age, did not have the capacity to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights. We expect that more rigorous designs would likely conclude similarly given widespread Miranda rights comprehension concerns for youth…

Admissibility:

…Constituting a substantial change to youth justice procedures, the development of statutes regarding the admissibility of youths' statements during interrogations may be advantageous. [Researchers have] proposed that statements made by youth 15 years old and younger should only be admissible if a lawyer was present. For youth 16 years old and older, the burden of proof should be on the court to prove that statements are admissible by demonstrating that waivers were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary…As such, this reform in isolation might disproportionately improve practices with youth depending on their race; prohibiting youth statements from being used in court is likely going to be most protective for youth if enacted in conjunction with additional policy reforms… Moving forward, meaningful reform will likely need to come through legislative initiatives and is most likely to occur at the state level" (p. 329).

Consequences:

"Juvenile court adjudications and criminal court convictions carry a wide range of collateral consequences that affect mental and physical health, education and employment opportunities, and the likelihood of subsequent juvenile and adult legal system involvement … Incarcerated youth tend to exhibit high rates of mental health concerns including suicidality, neurodevelopmental disorders, and alcohol and substance use, as well as an increased exposure to diseases. Over time, these difficulties contribute to greater recidivism, mortality, and overall health problems… If youth are unable to effectively assert their Miranda rights, they are at greater risk for each and all of these negative outcomes…

…It is our hope that this and similar calls to action prompt continued research and resource devotion to reform efforts for youth" (p. 331).

As always, please feel free to check out the resources below and comment to add more to the discussion!

• Miranda comprehension and misconceptions reflect distinct abilities
• When innocent confess: Modern potential jurors’ attitude toward false confessions
• Young Offenders with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Demonstrate More Impairment on Psycholegal Abilities