Examining Adolescents’ and their Parents’ Conceptual and Practical Knowledge of Police Interrogation: A Family Dyad Approach

Woolard, Jennifer; Cleary, Hayley M. D.; Harvell, Samantha; Chen, Rusan

doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9288-5

Cited by 59 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their analysis of 152 juvenile defendants, Viljoen, Zapf, and Roesch (2007) found a clear link between age and impaired Miranda comprehension: 11-13 years (58.0% impaired), 14-15 years (33.3% impaired), and 16-17 years (7.8% impaired). This relation of age to impaired Miranda comprehension has been clearly established in both offender (Colwell et al, 2005;Riggs-Romaine, 2008) and community (McLachlan, Roesch, & Douglas, 2010;Woolard, Cleary, Harvell, & Chen, 2008) samples. Closely aligned with age, maturity also plays an important role in Miranda comprehension (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000).…”

Section: Miranda Comprehension and Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 82%

Juvenile Miranda Warnings

Rogers

Blackwood

Fiduccia

et al. 2012

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American Bar Association, via its newly adopted policy, seeks fundamental changes in procedural justice with respect to juvenile Miranda warnings. It calls for understandable Miranda warnings to educate youth in custody regarding the relevant Constitutional protections. In surveying prosecutors and public defenders, the authors collected 293 juvenile Miranda warnings that are intended specifically for youthful offenders. Length and reading levels were analyzed and compared to an earlier survey. Nearly two thirds (64.9%) of these warnings were very long (> 175 words), which hinders Miranda comprehension. In addition, most juvenile warnings (91.6%) require reading comprehension higher than a 6th-grade level; 5.2% exceed a 12th-grade reading level. Combining across two surveys, more than half of juvenile Miranda warnings are highly problematic because of excessive lengths or difficult reading comprehension. However, simple and easily read Miranda components were identified that could be used to improve juvenile advisements. Breaking new ground, Miranda waivers were examined for both juveniles and their parents/interested adults. Interestingly, most juvenile versions emphasized waivers in positive terms (e.g., "an opportunity") and downplayed the potential for negative consequences.

show abstract

Section: Miranda Comprehension and Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 82%

Juvenile Miranda Warnings

Rogers

Blackwood

Fiduccia

et al. 2012

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A sizable proportion of attorneys reported that they sometimes do not request evaluations due to concerns that it could delay the proceedings, or because the youth or his or her parents are opposed to an evaluation. This deferral to the wishes of the youth and his/ her parents raises some concerns; youth who are potentially incompetent to stand trial may not be competent to decide whether to waive a competence evaluation, and parents may be inappropriate as proxy decision-makers (Woolard, Cleary, Harvell, & Chen, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another strategy was to further involve adolescents' parents or guardians. However, research indicates that some parents have inadequate legal capacities themselves (Woolard et al, 2008), and that they may advise their child to waive his or her rights, contrary to what attorneys would advise (Grisso & Ring, 1979). Therefore, it is unclear whether these types of strategy are always effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defense attorneys' concerns about the competence of adolescent defendants

Viljoen

McLachlan²,

Wingrove³

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research indicates that a sizable proportion of adolescent defendants have difficulty understanding and participating in legal proceedings against them, and may be incompetent to stand trial. To examine attorneys' experience in defending adolescents with competence-related difficulties, 214 juvenile attorneys were surveyed. Findings indicated that attorneys have doubts about the competence of approximately 10% of adolescent defendants, and that they find these cases particularly challenging to defend. Most attorneys appear to recognize that developmental factors may contribute to adolescents' competence-related difficulties, and believe that the law should accept developmental immaturity as a basis for incompetence findings. In approximately half of the cases in which attorneys had doubts about competence, attorneys did not request a competence evaluation but instead made other efforts to address competence issues, such as by teaching adolescents about legal proceedings and further involving their parents. The implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…Although it might be assumed that adolescents who are less than fully competent can rely on the advice of adults when making these decisions, adults are not always present (e.g., when an adolescent is picked up for questioning) and are not always wise about legal matters (i.e., not all adults are competent). They also do not always have the same interests as those of the adolescent (e.g., a mother who is angry at her adolescent for having gotten into trouble in the past may encourage him or her to confess to a crime not committed; see Woolard et al 2008).…”

Section: A Implications Of Developmental Neuroscience For Juvenile Cmentioning

confidence: 99%