This study examined whether age, IQ, and history of special education predicted Miranda rights comprehension and the self-reported tendency to falsely confess to a crime among 55 delinquent boys. The Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments–II, a revised version of Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights, were developed for this study and are described in detail in this article. Results revealed that age, IQ, and special education were related to comprehension of Miranda rights. When Miranda comprehension, age, and IQ were simultaneously tested as predictor variables of the self-reported likelihood of false confessions, only age served as an independent predictor. Research and policy implications of this study are presented, and recommendations for use of the original and revised instruments are reviewed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramovitch, R., Higgins-Biss, K., & Biss, S. (1993). Young persons’ comprehension of waivers in criminal proceedings . Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35, 309-322 .
2.
Abramovitch, R., Peterson-Badali, M., & Rohan, M. (1995). Young people’s understanding and assertion of their rights to silence and legal counsel . Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 1-18 .
3.
Bove, A. W., Goldstein, N. E., Appleton, C., & Thomson, M. R. (2003, March). Gender differences in IQ among juvenile offenders . Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association of Forensic Mental Health Service, Miami, FL.
4.
Condie, L., Goldstein, N. E., & Grisso, T. (2003). The Miranda RightsComprehension Instruments-II. Manuscript in preparation.
5.
Coyote v. U.S., 380 F.2d 305 (1967).
6.
Dickerson v. U.S., 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
7.
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
8.
Ferguson, A. B.,& Douglas, A. C. (1970). Astudy of juvenilewaiver . San Diego Law Review, 7, 39-54 .
9.
Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49 (1962).
10.
Goldstein, N. E., Mesiarik, C., Kalbeitzer, R., Thomson, C., Strachan, M., & Condie, L. (2003). Validity of the scoring criteria of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments–II. Manuscript in preparation.
11.
Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum .
12.
Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources .
13.
Grisso, T., Miller, M. O.,& Sales, B. (1997). Competency to stand trial in juvenile court . International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 1-20 .
14.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Singh, K. K. (1984). Interrogative suggestibility and delinquent boys: An empirical validation study . Personality& Individual Differences, 5, 425-430 .
15.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (1986). Criminal interrogations and confessions(3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins .
16.
In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
17.
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).
18.
Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis . Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469-484 .
19.
Kent v. U.S., 383 U.S. 541 (1966).
20.
Lawrence, R. A. (1983). The role of legal counsel in juveniles’ understanding of their rights . Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 34, 49-58 .
21.
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).
22.
Mesiarik, C., Goldstein, N. E.,& Thomson, M. (2002, March). Validity of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments–II scoring criteria and attorneys’ perceptions of adequate Miranda comprehension . Symposium conducted at the biennial conference of the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association), Austin, TX.
23.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
24.
Oberlander, L. B.,& Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension . Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 453-471 .
25.
Oberlander, L. B., Goldstein, N. E., & Ho, C. N. (2001). Preadolescent adjudicative competence: Methodological considerations and recommendations for practice standards . Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 545-563 .
26.
People v. Lara, 432 P.2d 202 (1967).
27.
Psychological Corporation. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Manual. San Antonio, TX: Author .
28.
Psychological Corporation. (1999). Manual for the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Author .
29.
Richardson, G., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Kelly, T. P. (1995). Interrogative suggestibility in an adolescent forensic population . Journal of Adolescence, 18, 211-216 .
30.
Shepherd, R. E., Jr., & Zaremba, B. A. (1995). When a disabled juvenile confesses to a crime: Should it be admissible? Criminal Justice, 9, 31-35 .
31.
Wall, S., & Furlong, M. (1985). Comprehension of Miranda rights by urban adolescents with law-related education . Psychological Reports, 56, 359-372 .
32.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale(3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation .
