Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: a comparison of legal standards

Abstract

Currently, there is considerable variability and ambiguity in legal standards pertaining to juveniles' comprehension of Miranda rights and their adjudicative competence. This study investigated rates of impairment under various proposed legal standards. One hundred and fifty-two young defendants aged 11-17 were assessed with Grisso's Miranda Instruments and the Fitness Interview Test-Revised. While over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in adjudicative capacities when adult norms were applied, significantly fewer adolescents were classified as impaired when adolescent norms were applied or a standard of "basic understanding and communication." Also, while over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in their comprehension of Miranda rights when both understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights were required, significantly fewer youth were classified as being impaired when only understanding was required. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Effects of Age, Adaptive Behavior, and Cognitive Abilities on Competence-Related Abilities in Children and Adolescents

“…Unfortunately, it is not possible to tell whether this finding is unique to the present sample or whether age is actually a more important factor to consider regarding one's ability to understand and appreciate the Miranda rights than one's ability to understand and reason as it relates to participation at trial. Few prior studies have investigated both types of competence simultaneously, and of those that have (Redlich et al, 2003;Viljoen, Zapf, & Roesch, 2007) very little data are available to confirm or refute the present finding. Redlich and colleagues (2003) found age to be a stronger predictor of performance on the Miranda Instruments than the MacCAT-CA; however, in their analyses, age was categorically defined according to two groups (age 14-17 and 18-25) and no youth below the age of 14 were included in the sample.…”

“…Therefore, in all evaluations it is imperative the evaluator is more cautious and attentive to possible deficits for younger offenders. Past studies have noted that offenders under the age of 15 are more likely to present with deficits and those under 12 are at an even higher risk LaVelle Ficke et al, 2006;Viljoen et al, 2007). The present results would also indicate that evaluators might pay particular attention to youth for whom the validity of their waiver of rights has been questioned.…”

“…Both large-scale Kivisto et al, 2011) and smaller studies (Viljoen et al, 2007;Warren et al, 2003) have investigated the effects of age on competence, and while particular nuances arise depending on the age of participants in each study and the measures or types of competence investigated, enough evidence has amassed to firmly conclude that age is an important consideration. What remains unclear is whether there is a particular age at which the risk of incompetence is high enough to assume that all offenders of this age or younger would be incompetent.…”

Safeguarding Youth Interrogation Rights: The Effect of Grade Level and Reading Complexity of Youth Waiver Forms on the Comprehension of Legal Rights

“…Subsequent research in Scotland, the USA, and Canada confirmed that youths failed to comprehend their legal rights and-in line with what is known about brain maturation processes (Yurgelun-Todd, 2007)-that younger youths tend to exhibit the lowest levels of understanding (e.g., Abramovitch, Peterson-Badali, & Rohan, 1995;Cooke & Philip, 1998;Goldstein et al, 2003;McLachlan, Roesch, & Douglas, 2011;Viljoen, Zapf, & Roesch, 2007). In an initial preliminary test of the comprehensibility of Canadian youth waiver forms-which contained the enhanced protections provided by the YCJA- Eastwood et al (2012; Study 2) presented a single waiver form to a sample of high school students.…”

Stress, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Problems in a Sample of Diversion Program Youths: An Exploratory Latent Class Analysis

“…Considerable attention has focused on conduct disorders, characterized by aggressiveness, property destruction, deceitfulness, or lack of regard for rules or laws, which is quite prevalent among juvenile offenders, especially among incarcerated youths (Lahey et al, 1994; Wasserman et al, 2005; Teplin et al, 2006). Particular interest has sought to differentiate youths with conduct disorder according to the presence/absence of callous and unemotional traits (Frick & White, 2008; Dembo et al, 2007)---analogous to the conceptualization of adult psychopathy (Hare, Hart & Harpur, 1991; Hare, 1998). Research has found that callous CD juvenile offenders, who comprise a minority of incarcerated youths, are responsible for the majority of crime, especially serious crime (Hill & Maughan, 2001; Dembo et al, 2007; Frick & White, 2008).…”