Police interviewing and interrogation of juvenile suspects: A descriptive examination of actual cases.

Abstract

Although empirical attention to police interrogation has gained traction in recent years, comparatively few studies have examined interrogation of juvenile suspects, and virtually none have examined actual interrogations. Despite a growing literature on youths' interrogation-related capacities, we still know very little about what actually transpires when police question youth. The present study examines electronically recorded police interviews with juveniles to describe the characteristics, processes, and outcomes that occur in actual juvenile interrogations, including interview duration, individuals present, and confessions. Fifty-seven electronic recordings from 17 police departments were analyzed using observational research software. The median juvenile interrogation lasted 46 min, though the range was extensive (6 min to nearly 5 hr). Youth frequently submitted to questioning without a parent or advocate present, and disruptions to the interview process were common. Interrogation outcomes varied and included full confessions, partially incriminating admissions, and denials of guilt. Results from this study provide context for interrogation research using other methods and suggest that youth may frequently consent to interrogation in the absence of important legal protections.

False confessions

“…A nine‐step process then ensues in which an interrogator combines both negative and positive incentives—one one hand, confronting the suspect with accusations of guilt, without opportunity for denial, assertions that may be bolstered by true or false presentations of incriminating evidence; on the other hand, offering sympathy and moral justification, minimizing the crime and leading suspects to see confession as an expedient means of ‘escape.’ Once the suspect is persuaded to admit guilt, the interrogator looks to convert that admission into a full narrative confession that details what the suspect did, how, and why. Both observational studies and police self‐report surveys suggest that these techniques are commonly employed …”

Lawyers and children: Is there a need for mandatory legal assistance in suspect interviews?

“…As found in a multi-country study in Europe, this vulnerability is probably greatest during police interviews where the situation may be unfamiliar and stressful (Panzavolta and de Vocht, 2015). Research from the United States suggests that juvenile suspects may frequently consent to suspect interviews in the absence of important legal safeguards (Cleary, 2014; Haney-Caron et al, 2018) and that even when the ordinary safeguards are available, it is doubtful they are used effectively because juveniles do not appreciate their value (Grisso et al, 2003). Accordingly, as concluded in a study from England and Wales, specific procedural safeguards for juveniles are needed because of their additional vulnerabilities (Gooch and Von Berg, 2019).…”

The Advice Parents Give Their Children During Police Questioning

“…On the one hand, parents may feel responsible for protecting their child from legal consequences, yet on the other hand they may feel they need to teach their child to take responsibility for their actions and or teach them moral values such as truth and honesty (Cavanagh et al, 2020;Cleary & Warner, 2017). It has also been proposed that parents may see it as their role to elicit information from their child in order to help police with their investigation (Cleary, 2014), or to teach their child a lesson (Broeking, 2009).These findings and explanations suggest that parents may not always act in the best interests of their child in police questioning situations. It is possible that a lack of understanding of the child's legal rights and the protection they afford the child may underpin these decisions.…”

“…No defendants reported their parents wanted them to remain silent (Viljoen et al, 2005). It may be that by asking our participants to apply their understanding through hypothetical advice we have tapped into some underlying beliefs, such as believing that a police questioning situation is an opportunity to teach their child to tell the truth (Cavanagh et al, 2020;Cleary & Warner, 2017) or believing it is their role to elicit information from their child in order to help police with their investigation (Cleary, 2014). This may have resulted in our findings being influenced by the same bias that is observed in field studies but not observed when researchers measure knowledge and understanding outside of a police questioning context.…”

“…This suggests that, although parent's knowledge and understanding of their child's rights is an important aspect of the advice they give in police questioning situations, it might not be the only variable driving high levels of legally problematic advice. As discussed earlier, prior research has identified attitudes towards the justice system, inaccurate beliefs about the justice system and personal values as factors that may also influence the advice nominated people give their young person in police questioning situations (Cavanagh et al, 2020;Cleary & Warner, 2017;Cleary, 2014).…”