Interrogating Juveniles Without Parents Just

Interrogating Juveniles Without Parents

Just the Facts

Case by Case

The Interrogation

Interrogation Points

Criminal Interrogation Ethics

To Tell the Truth 5

Juvenile Facts

The Presumption of Innocence

BARD

Just the Facts

Practical Considerations

INTERROGATING JUVENILES WITHOUT PARENTS

Just the Facts

Case by Case

The man of character, sensitive to the meaning of what he is doing, will know how to discover the ethical paths in the maze of possible behavior. (Warren, 1964) want to call my parents."

No response.

I want to call my mother or dad to come here and be with me."

Again no response.

A need my parents to be here."

The above scenario depicts the account of events that occurred when Jerrel, at the age of 14 in 2001, repeatedly asked that he be allowed to phone his parents to come to the police station to be with him during his interrogation. His requests to phone his parents were reportedly denied again and again while he was interrogated for almost 6 hours. In the end, Jerrel signed a confession that he had taken part in an armed robbery. ("CHILD INTERROGATION...," 2004 Legal? Depends on the state and who answers the question. Ethical? This answer would also be contingent on the mindset of the person who answers the question. This research posits, however, that with few exceptions, it is not ethical for a police officer to interrogate a juvenile apart from his/her parents(s) or caregivers. Components in Jerrel's case particularly seem unethical. "I got the thought that maybe I should say it so I could go home," Jerrell later told a therapist prior to his trial where he was convicted in Milwaukee County Children's Court and consequently imprisoned for more than a year. Later, Jerrel said he had made a false confession. Jerrel's attorney raises the question: "Should children have the right to have a parent present while being interrogated by police?" (Ibid.) "Police sometimes allow parents to be present in the questioning of their child,"

Sergeant Ken Henning, a Milwaukee police spokesman, states. (Ibid.)

Henning, however, stresses the decision whether or not a parent is allowed to be with a minor during an interrogation is up to the police officer leading the interrogation In Wisconsin, as well as, in numerous other states, police offices and/or interrogators who question juveniles are not legally required to treat them differently from adults during the interrogation process. I never let children I question call their parents, one Milwaukee police detective, who questioned Jerrell, admits. (Ibid.)

Jerrell's attorney and numerous other juvenile justice advocates in the U.S. argue that minors, including juveniles, are more likely to make false confessions as they are not mentally developed enough to understand their Miranda rights. Those who support this concept insist a parent or concerned adult needs to sit in on interrogations of minors and juveniles under 17 years old. They also argue interrogations of juveniles should be recorded. (Ibid.)

Thirteen other states have passed laws or court decisions ruling that children are entitled to have their parents or caregivers present during interrogations. During 1974, the state Supreme Court ruled that even though police are not ordered to allow a parent or caregiver to accompany a juvenile during interrogations, the decision not to do so could contribute to the minor's confession to be dismissed in court, as it could be deemed evidence of coercion. (Ibid.) Attorneys note that in Wisconsin, however, where Jerrel was convicted, minors are seldom allowed to call their parents. Robin Shellow, a Milwaukee attorney states she has "represented more than 100 children in criminal cases statewide and none of them had a parent present during the interrogation." (Ibid.) Confessions are admitted in court even after an interrogator or police officer implied bad things would happen to the minor if he/she did not comply. Examples of illegal statements juveniles are told, Shellow states, include: "You're going to be raped in an adult prison. You're never going to go home again. Your mom will abandon you." Courts, nevertheless, regularly contend police may reject a juvenile's request to have a parent or caregiver present during his/her interrogation. (Ibid.)

If you don't confess, you could be in prison for more than 60 years,"Jerrell said the police implied to him. (Ibid.)

If a kid is arrested for homicide, are the parents going to be there? No. If the kid is picked up for sexual assault? Yes. It's a case-by-case thing," Henning says. (Ibid.)

Henning argues that teenagers can understand their Miranda rights, just as easily as adults. Adults who support Jerrell, however, counter his argument with the fact that a clinical study determined that during an interrogation when presented with false evidence of guilt, a majority of juveniles complied with a request to sign false confessions. (Ibid.)

II. The Interrogation

Interrogation Points

Buckley (1992) identifies an interrogation's three primary objectives:

To ascertain the probability of whether or not the suspect is the offender;

To eliminate an innocent individual by eliciting evidence, information, and/or behavior symptoms that indicate that fact;

To obtain a confession from the guilty person and/or information from him/her regarding another person's involvement.

Criminal Interrogation Ethics

Ethical practices in the interrogation of juveniles are deemed desirable, however, Inbau (1999), stresses that "fair" and "unfair" interrogation practices are permissible, as sometimes, the essence of a particular practice such as befriended a suspect may be a necessary "unethical" practice for an interrogator to establish a criminal's guilt. He explains that as interrogators, to some extent, deal with criminals on a lower moral plane, the plane needs to be subject only to the following restriction: "nothing shall be done or said to the subject that will be apt to make an innocent person confess." The following techniques, frequently used by police officers to reduce the suspect's resistance to confess could be particularly problematic and unethical in regard to interrogating juveniles without parental or caregiver support:

State that the purpose for the interrogation is not to find out whether or not the suspect committed the crime, but rather to determine what caused the suspect to commit it.

Express high confidence in the suspect's guilt.

Attempt to prevent the suspect from verbalizing denials by maintaining a monologue and urging the suspect to listen to the interrogator.

Sympathize with the suspect's position and express understanding as to why he or she committed the crime. In this regard the investigator may blame the victim for causing the suspect to commit the crime, minimize the impact of the crime on others, or blame psychological stress or intoxication for affecting the suspect's judgment.

Falsely tell the suspect about possible evidence implicating him or her in the commission of the crime.

Move physically close to the suspect to maintain his or her attention and interest. (Buckley, Ibid.)

Although Buckley (Ibid.) contends that these techniques would not cause an innocent person to confess to a crime he/she did not commit, and, at most, reduce a suspect's resistance to confess. These tactics, nevertheless, could be particularly intimidating to a juvenile, and accompanied by other triggers, could convince him/her to sign a confession.

To Tell the Truth

Traditional "brainwashing" tactics, which include " torture, promises, isolation, starvation, and threats occurring over a period of months or years," (Ibid.) utilized to attempt to change war prisoners' political attitudes is not used during an interrogation.

Interrogation procedures reportedly involve a scenario similar where two adversaries utilize propaganda and persuasion to promote and confirm their cause. As a guilty suspect is motivated to avoid punishment, he/she tries to verbally persuade interrogator that he/she is innocent. The interrogator, on the other hand, utilizes salesmanship and persuasion to attempt to overcome a suspect's resistance to confess he/she committed the crime question and encourage him/her to tell the truth. "To tell the truth," this researcher contends, a juvenile would in no sense be a match for a seasoned interrogator. This fact also lends supports to the perception that interrogating a juvenile without a parent or caregiver present proves unethical. Coercion, another ambiguous term sometimes teamed with the concept of interrogation, suggests the use of physical force and/or physical methods like blows or blinding lights. "Justice Jackson argued that every interrogation, regardless of its length, involves inherent coercion." This would present another vote toward the belief that interrogating a juvenile alone constitutes an unethical action. (Ibid.) Compulsion, unlike coercion, depicts "an uncontrollable desire or urge to engage in a particular behavior." (Ibid.) When a police officer of interrogator, for instance, implies the suspect may be harmed or threatens to isolate him/her unless he/she confesses, this is considered compulsion. The fact that compulsion is used in interrogation presents one more reason this researcher considers it unethical for juvenile to be interrogated without a parent or caregiver present. Another tactic utilized in interrogation that supports the idea that it is unethical for juvenile to be interrogated without a parent or caregiver present is duress. Duress describes a general component of the environment where a suspect is interrogated, is cited to be a belief the interrogation was so unbearable he/she thought the only way for relief was to confess.

Juvenile Facts

Juvenile-justice experts stress that as juveniles differ developmentally from adults, they should be treated in a different way in the criminal justice system. "Minors are generally less mature, more submissive in the face of police authority, and lack critical knowledge and experience, as compared to adults," Marsha Levick of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, in a friend-of-the-court brief, stresses. ("How should police...," 2004)

Special Miranda Rule for Juveniles?

During October 1995, Detective Cheryl Comstock, Los Angeles County Sheriff's department, contacted the mother of Michael Alvarado, seventeen-years-old, who had been involved in an attempted car robbery resulting in Francisco Castaneda's murder. In turn, Alvarado's parents brought Alvarado to the Sheriff's station and advised Comstock she could interview him. Alvarado, and his parents requested that someone accompany Alvarado during the interview, however, the requests were dismissed. ("How should police...," 2004) Regarding the determination of Alvardo's ultimate appeal.".. The substantive matter of whether a juvenile's age should be included in the custodial inquiry," Park contends, "the Court was wrong to conclude that juvenile status should not be a consideration." As a cognitive and physiological difference exists between adolescents and adults, warranting dissimilar treatment of the two, including age lessen the custodial analysis' objectiveness. Police procedures currently consider juvenile status for the interrogation process. (Park, 2005) Miranda warnings mandate police warn a criminal suspect of his/her rights when he/she is taken into custody.

If police fail to present a warning, statements and/or information a suspect give to police "prior to the warning must be barred from use as evidence." Whether or not juveniles are entitled to a customized Miranda warning, perhaps protecting juveniles from interrogations without a parent or caregiver present, albeit, continues to be open for debate. Alvarado's lawyers argue.".. juveniles should be treated more deferentially than adults because of their age and lack of experience with police. 'The law has long given controlling weight to juvenile status in innumerable legal contexts, including interrogation because it creates a vulnerability repeatedly noted by this court as requiring additional care and concern in police-citizen interactions," Tara Allen, Alvarado's lawyer, stressed during her brief to the court. ("How should police...," Ibid.) California and the Solicitor General's Office, on the other hand, argue that a new juvenile Miranda rule would make solving particular crimes more challenging and complicate law-enforcement effort. This could adversely affect free and voluntary confessions. Inbau (1999) questions the idea of Courts attempting to solve the juvenile delinquency problem by decreeing courtroom reprimands to a delinquent's parents. Just as the roots for juvenile delinquency are manifold and deep-rooted, so are police abuses and illegal practices.

III. The Presumption of Innocence

BARD

When Ingraham (1996) discusses The American Doctrine regarding "The Presumption Of Innocence," he questions the morality of ancillary doctrines, such as "The American doctrine of the accused person's 'right of silence' and the almost absolute protection the doctrine offers to prevent adverse consequences from exercising this right are also derived in large part from the presumption of innocence." Ingraham (Ibid) concurs with O'Reilly's assertion in that regarding the American doctrine related to the presumption of innocence the prosecution (the state) has the burden to prove all the essential facts of a charged crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" [BARD].

Just Doing their Job?

Despite current proliferation of external oversight and civilian review agencies related to the way complaints against police officers are investigated, accountability mechanisms frequently fail to placate citizens' concerns, such as those in the ethical realm. Complainants regarding police practices, including interrogations of juveniles abound. (Goldsmith, 1996) Criticism also often reflects concerns of inadequate accountability of police. Making a complaint, however, is considered useless by some as officers are generally deemed to be just doing their job. (Goldsmith, 1996) On the other hand, a great number of police officer do more then their job requires and regularly implement positive ethical behaviors during the interrogation of juveniles and make a point to invite parents and caregivers to attend sessions.

Just the Facts

In light of criticisms and compliments regarding interrogations, as Joe Friday, police detective in the old American television program who served as the.".. quintessential forensic realist," (Goldsmith, 1996) frequently insisted, what is needed in regard to the concern of this paper is "just the facts." suspects' lines of defense are reportedly too often considered irrelevant "red-herrings" and argued away and/or ignored. When direct evidence is absent, testimonial evidence is vital for forensic purposes. A typical interrogation frequently involve a "theory of the case," or elements of the initial suspicions prompting the interrogation of a suspect. While suspects usually proclaim their innocence and attempt to provide positive evidence to support their innocence claim, police often tenaciously rebuff a suspect's claim. The interrogating officer frequently presumes the suspect is guilty. The purpose of the interrogation is to retrieve a confession.

This purpose, particularly with parents present during the interrogation of a juvenile, this researcher argues, might be better filled with "just the facts"

No Question

There is no question, Inbau (1999), contends, with satire, that improper interrogation practices could be eliminated if Courts or Legislatures outlawed using confessions as evidence of guilt. This would be as preposterous as trying to eliminate traffic fatalities.".. By requiring governors to be placed on all automobiles to prevent their going faster than twenty miles per hour... A great sacrifice of much else."

Practical Considerations

Is it constitutional to execute juvenile killers? Is it ethical to interrogate a juvenile without his/her parent(s) or caregiver present?

Holland (2004) does not specifically answer these two questions, but does note one specific case the court considered, which in a sense does present poignant answers. Regarding the constitutionality of executing juvenile killers, "Justices voted 5-4 to reinstate a young man's murder conviction and said police have no obligation to treat younger suspects differently from adults under the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling that led to the warning that begins 'You have the right to remain silent.'"

In fact, the statement,.".. police have no obligation to treat younger suspects differently from adults under the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling..." answers more than the two cited questions. Insuring ethical practices are employed when interrogating juveniles may not be a legal obligation for a police officer, but could it be a moral one? Numerous studies purport that along with.".. destructive environmental factors such as poverty, inadequate housing and education, lack of work opportunities, drug addiction, alcoholism, and domestic violence...." (O'Connor & Treat, 1996) juvenile crime stems from weakened family and community structures. To help counter this current national plight, additional social concerns, including ethical issues, need to be addressed. Instead of the juvenile justice system serving as a preventative tool, juveniles are introduced to the system after they have stepped over the law's line and generally presumed guilty. At one point in its history, the juvenile system set out to "save" juveniles, but through time, the system appears to have "lost its individualized character and instead began to place juveniles in large congregate care facilities with little individually tailored attention," breaking the bond of family even more. Some hybrid programs, nevertheless, are proving to be successful for rehabilitating juveniles; particularly those programs that monitor and work with the juvenile, along with his/her family, after he/she reenters the community.