9 ms·

King County rolls out Miranda rights tailored for young people

183 points by curtis 9y ago

Matheus28 9y ago
>If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me. Only if it hurts your case [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (sorry, don't remember the exact time, but the video is great, watch it in full anyway)
- lightbyte 9y ago
  That's why they say "I can tell" and not "I must tell"
  - Gracana 9y ago
    Sure, it's technically right, but it's not good communication. A kid (and most adults) won't pick up on what that implies.
13of40 9y ago
Why just youth? I can't see how it would hurt to switch to this for everyone. You can get your free lawyer to explain in adult-speak later.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Did you read the article? >But brain scientists say young people often lack the perspective and judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest. This is why they made a version that goes into more detail.
  - jovial_cavalier 9y ago
    But the consequences of remaining silent or not remaining silent might be lost on anyone, regardless of their age.
  - 13of40 9y ago
    NABS, but I think it's more accurate to say, "People often lack the perspective and judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest."
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Why would phrasing add perspective or judgement?
- XaspR8d 9y ago
  Protecting youth from failures of justice is a more palatable political stance than protecting adults (which is no longer "hard on crime")?
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    I'm pretty conservative and I can't imagine how having someone understand their constitutional rights would be unpalatable to anyone on either side of the aisle. I want to be tough on criminals but you are only a criminal after you have received your due process and have been found guilty of a crime.
    - macintux 9y ago
      > I want to be tough on criminals but you are only a criminal after you have received your due process and have been found guilty of a crime. That is sadly not a typical viewpoint, particularly among conservatives.
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        >That is sadly not a typical viewpoint, particularly among conservatives. I consider those people as more GOP enthusiasts than conservatives. An example of a true conservative would be someone like Tucker Carlson or Rand Paul. It's sort of like how antifa doesn't represent the majority of democrat voters I have encountered. They are a slim minority of loud voices that muddy the waters.
        justin66 9y ago
        > It's sort of like how antifa doesn't represent the majority of democrat voters I have encountered. It would be fascinating if they represented even a minority of the democratic voters you've encountered. They don't seem like they'd be even a statistical blip on the radar.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        They're all conservatives. A conservative is someone who self identifies as a conservative, that's really all that matters. Antifa are liberals, radical extreme liberals that seem to have a problem with free speech, but liberals none the less.
- kristianc 9y ago
  Agree - it makes sense to roll this out to everyone, particularly as you can't always tell if an individual is mentally impaired in some way.
- txru 9y ago
  I'd say it's just that the specific wording has Supreme Court precedence to back up its' validity, and while they would probably look favorably upon making it clearer for children, rewriting it because it doesn't seem clear enough would entail too much cities battling the courts for small changes. Leniency and interpretation is something that many in society agree upon when it comes to children, but the argument becomes a lot harder for adults.
aklemm 9y ago
This is excellent. Rethinking these types of seemingly small things is a great way to make progress.
Top19 9y ago
This seems great, especially since having a criminal record early can destabilize you so much long term. Also keep in mind that just yesterday there was an editorial in the Washington Post blasting Seattle’s city council for losing their marbles (like establishing a city income tax of 2.5% even though income tax is down like 30% from 30 years ago). Seattle’s City Council, while definitely kind of weird, has been doing some really innovative and awesome stuff, they are trying to learn hard from the mistakes of San Francisco. For instance they’ve established a number of groups to support “renters rights” to counter NIMBY-esque homeowners for instance.
- geephroh 9y ago
  It's actually got absolutely nothing to do with City of Seattle government. This is an initiative by the King County (the county where Seattle is located) Prosecutor's Office and the Sheriff's Department. It does not (yet, hopefully) apply to Seattle Police Department or the Seattle City Prosecutor's Office. So while many of the affected youth may end up benefitting from the initiative if they land at the KC Juvenile Justice Center, if they're arrested by an SPD officer, they're likely to hear the same old Miranda. (And another point of clarification 'cause I read it too and can't help myself: an opinion piece by George Will isn't exactly an "editorial." I'd seriously doubt that the WAPost editorial board would agree with many of his dubious positions in the column.)
DanBC 9y ago
Why don't they just automatically call lawyers for young people? That would be a better way to protect the rights of young people.
- emeraldd 9y ago
  Having the right to an attorney does not mean that you are required to have an attorney. On top of that, if the persons family already has an attorney then I'd imagine there are all kinds of issues with adding a court appointed one to the mix.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikestew 9y ago
    Fine, then just make it a requirement that some kind of attorney be present before interrogating an underage suspect. I mean, hell, you can't sell them cigarettes or liquor, you can't have sex with them, we don't let them drive before they're almost an adult. Yet when the cops show up we'll let them flap their gums without professional advice when it's almost certainly against their best interests to do so. When I was sixteen, I can guarantee that I was better equipped to decide whether or not to smoke than I was in deciding whether or not to talk to cops. One decision requires a bit of common sense, the other is best suited to those with six years of schooling.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanBC 9y ago
    but if the desire is to protect the rights of vulnerable people, and to make convictions more reliable, it's easier to just make sure anyone under 18 or with a borderline learning disability gets an Appropriate Adult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_adult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_adult
- wtallis 9y ago
  From the article: > Last spring the county adopted a new ordinance that requires juveniles detained at the Juvenile Detention Center in Seattle to get advice from an attorney before talking to law enforcement.
popmatrix 9y ago
I agree with the clarification of the Miranda for youths who may not fully understand it as it is recited today. From the article, "We put kids in jail and that could ruin their life, so we need to be really careful about when and how we do that.” This is a very important point and I hope they do not stop at clarifying Miranda rights. Extending the approach of helping youths lacking 'perspective and judgement', I'd hope for further investigation into the effects of reducing sentences of minor crimes for youths as well.
geofft 9y ago
> If you start to answer my questions, you can change your mind and stop at any time. I won’t ask you any more questions. Hmm. I thought the Supreme Court said that you had to explicitly state your refusal to answer questions, and simply stopping answering questions could be considered a response that can be used against you.
- justin66 9y ago
  > I thought the Supreme Court said that you had to explicitly state your refusal to answer questions, and simply stopping answering questions could be considered a response that can be used against you. The first half of that sentence is correct. Not so sure about the second half. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supreme_court_rules_in_miranda.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supre...
  - slavik81 9y ago
    I'm not sure I understand this. What would have changed if he had said he was exercising his right to remain silent?
    - slavik81 9y ago
      From the opinion: > Both [the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney] protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring an interrogation to cease when either right is invoked. It seems that if he had explicitly stated he did not wish to talk, the interrogation would have ended immediately. Because it was not explicitly stated, the police were allowed to continue asking questions. After several hours of being asked questions, he broke his silence and answered. It appears that explicitly invoking your right to remain silent saves you a lot of stress.
- basseq 9y ago
  Anecdotally, I feel like there are interrogations where the police kept asking questions even after the subject refused to answer or exercised their right to silence. E.g., you have the right not to answer questions, not the right to silence those asking questions.
downandout 9y ago
If they are concerned enough about unnecessarily ruining lives to change the Miranda warning, why not focus more on exercising the most powerful tool we have in our criminal justice system: prosecutorial discretion? After all, the cops reading the Miranda warning can only bring people to jail; it’s the prosecutors that keep them there. Prosecutors have the ability to not file cases at all. They also have the ability to offer diversion programs, wherein accused criminals can voluntarily agree to community-based sanctions/supervision in exchange for their cases not being filed. These do exist in some jurisdictions today, but tend to be offered to a very small percentage of defendants. In short: if they really cared about ruining lives, they’d stop trying so hard to ruin lives (in all but the most serious cases). Changing the Miranda warning may be a very small step forward, but getting prosecutors on board is the only way to make a real difference.
- sbarre 9y ago
  Until they remove career-advancing incentives for prosecutors that are tied to case outcomes and numbers of filings, this probably won't happen.
  - plussed_reader 9y ago
    And since CA is the example: you also remove the prosecutorial discretion when you codify things like mandatory minimum sentences.
    - geephroh 9y ago
      Ummm....WA actually, as in Seattle. But you're still not wrong since we have mandatory minimums here as well.
      - jff 9y ago
        > Ummm....WA actually, as in Seattle. Give it a few more years...
        9y ago
tuxxy 9y ago
>You have the right to remain silent, which means that you don’t have to say anything. >It’s OK if you don’t want to talk to me. They completely left the part out how whatever you say to the officer can be used as evidence in court (and perhaps against you). No kid is going to pick up on that implication. EDIT: No idea why I'm getting downvoted. Even with the rest of the text, it DOES NOT imply that whatever they say to the officer could cause them to lose their case in the future.
- 5ilv3r 9y ago
  You missed it? "If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me."
  - gknoy 9y ago
    They could have also added, "... and could even be used as evidence against you in court".
    - tuxxy 9y ago
      Exactly! Of course they can phrase it differently if needed. Just because the officer tells them that they can tell the judge what they say doesn't at all imply that it could cause the child to get in more trouble.
  - mattnewport 9y ago
    I'd say it's missing anything as clear as "Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.", that implication is not obvious from the new warning to me.
    - eridius 9y ago
      How is that not an obvious implication though? Does anyone actually think "oh yeah I can tell the cop, who can tell the judge, but the judge definitely won't use that info in the courtroom!"
azernik 9y ago
> But brain scientists say young people often lack the perspective and judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest. And yet, the actual changes seem to mostly have to do with language skills, comprehension, and familiarity with the US legal system. Compare: Original Miranda warning: "You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish." Revised "for kids" Miranda warning: "You have the right to talk to a free lawyer right now. That free lawyer works for you and is available at any time – even late at night. That lawyer does not tell anyone what you tell them." Given that the original Miranda case had to do with immigrants, I think the revised version is actually much more fitting to the purpose than the current standard.
Chaebixi 9y ago
> If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me. It's missing the explicit warning that "what you say can and will be used against you in the court of law." I think they should add a clause to the end stating "and they can use this information against you to get you in trouble." This video is always relevant when the subject of talking to police comes up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- jamestimmins 9y ago
  Agreed. This seems like an important clarification, because without it it sounds like talking with the police officer can't have serious negatives.
- sparrish 9y ago
  The Miranda warning is "Anything you say MAY be used against you in a court of law." It may not... But it definitely won't be used in your favor so keep silent and never answer questions from law enforcement without a lawyer present.
  - lukas099 9y ago
    I always thought it was "CAN and WILL be use against you."
    - sparrish 9y ago
      That's just what they say in Hollywood. Common mistake that I wager most folks would report it says as well.
dcole2929 9y ago
I wonder how long after this goes into effect until we start hearing about all the one off cases where the officer "forgot" to use the new template to explain the miranda rights to a juvenile minority suspect. All in all, this seems like a step in the right direction, but somehow I can't help but expect this to just be abused by police like pretty much every other time we've given them explicit discretionary powers. Maybe I'm just jaded.
matt_wulfeck 9y ago
Changing the wording seems more like a symptom of the real issue: we're collectively very poor at our constitutional literacy. If there's anything worth teaching in our schools, it's the rights and responsibilities we have as citizens of this country. "A republic, if you can keep it."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
0xbear 9y ago
For juveniles, IMO, nothing they say before meeting with their lawyer should be admissible in court. It’s as simple as that. These Miranda rights should just point blank tell them to shut up before they talk to a lawyer. Juveniles are just too easy for an adult to coerce a false confession from.
leksak 9y ago
I'm surprised Miranda rights are hard to understand and I live in another country. Guess I watched too much TV as a kid to be exposed to it enough for it to be recitable from memory... Hell, I know more of and about the US constitution than I do my own.

183 points by curtis 9y ago

>If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me. Only if it hurts your case [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (sorry, don't remember the exact time, but the video is great, watch it in full anyway)

lightbyte 9y ago
That's why they say "I can tell" and not "I must tell"
- Gracana 9y ago
  Sure, it's technically right, but it's not good communication. A kid (and most adults) won't pick up on what that implies.

13of40 9y ago

Why just youth? I can't see how it would hurt to switch to this for everyone. You can get your free lawyer to explain in adult-speak later.

lightbyte 9y ago
Did you read the article? >But brain scientists say young people often lack the perspective and judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest. This is why they made a version that goes into more detail.
- jovial_cavalier 9y ago
  But the consequences of remaining silent or not remaining silent might be lost on anyone, regardless of their age.
- 13of40 9y ago
  NABS, but I think it's more accurate to say, "People often lack the perspective and judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest."
- mulmen 9y ago
  Why would phrasing add perspective or judgement?
XaspR8d 9y ago
Protecting youth from failures of justice is a more palatable political stance than protecting adults (which is no longer "hard on crime")?
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  I'm pretty conservative and I can't imagine how having someone understand their constitutional rights would be unpalatable to anyone on either side of the aisle. I want to be tough on criminals but you are only a criminal after you have received your due process and have been found guilty of a crime.
  - macintux 9y ago
    > I want to be tough on criminals but you are only a criminal after you have received your due process and have been found guilty of a crime. That is sadly not a typical viewpoint, particularly among conservatives.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      >That is sadly not a typical viewpoint, particularly among conservatives. I consider those people as more GOP enthusiasts than conservatives. An example of a true conservative would be someone like Tucker Carlson or Rand Paul. It's sort of like how antifa doesn't represent the majority of democrat voters I have encountered. They are a slim minority of loud voices that muddy the waters.
      - justin66 9y ago
        > It's sort of like how antifa doesn't represent the majority of democrat voters I have encountered. It would be fascinating if they represented even a minority of the democratic voters you've encountered. They don't seem like they'd be even a statistical blip on the radar.
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        They're all conservatives. A conservative is someone who self identifies as a conservative, that's really all that matters. Antifa are liberals, radical extreme liberals that seem to have a problem with free speech, but liberals none the less.
kristianc 9y ago
Agree - it makes sense to roll this out to everyone, particularly as you can't always tell if an individual is mentally impaired in some way.
txru 9y ago
I'd say it's just that the specific wording has Supreme Court precedence to back up its' validity, and while they would probably look favorably upon making it clearer for children, rewriting it because it doesn't seem clear enough would entail too much cities battling the courts for small changes. Leniency and interpretation is something that many in society agree upon when it comes to children, but the argument becomes a lot harder for adults.

aklemm 9y ago

This is excellent. Rethinking these types of seemingly small things is a great way to make progress.

Top19 9y ago

This seems great, especially since having a criminal record early can destabilize you so much long term. Also keep in mind that just yesterday there was an editorial in the Washington Post blasting Seattle’s city council for losing their marbles (like establishing a city income tax of 2.5% even though income tax is down like 30% from 30 years ago). Seattle’s City Council, while definitely kind of weird, has been doing some really innovative and awesome stuff, they are trying to learn hard from the mistakes of San Francisco. For instance they’ve established a number of groups to support “renters rights” to counter NIMBY-esque homeowners for instance.

geephroh 9y ago
It's actually got absolutely nothing to do with City of Seattle government. This is an initiative by the King County (the county where Seattle is located) Prosecutor's Office and the Sheriff's Department. It does not (yet, hopefully) apply to Seattle Police Department or the Seattle City Prosecutor's Office. So while many of the affected youth may end up benefitting from the initiative if they land at the KC Juvenile Justice Center, if they're arrested by an SPD officer, they're likely to hear the same old Miranda. (And another point of clarification 'cause I read it too and can't help myself: an opinion piece by George Will isn't exactly an "editorial." I'd seriously doubt that the WAPost editorial board would agree with many of his dubious positions in the column.)

DanBC 9y ago

Why don't they just automatically call lawyers for young people? That would be a better way to protect the rights of young people.

emeraldd 9y ago
Having the right to an attorney does not mean that you are required to have an attorney. On top of that, if the persons family already has an attorney then I'd imagine there are all kinds of issues with adding a court appointed one to the mix.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mikestew 9y ago
  Fine, then just make it a requirement that some kind of attorney be present before interrogating an underage suspect. I mean, hell, you can't sell them cigarettes or liquor, you can't have sex with them, we don't let them drive before they're almost an adult. Yet when the cops show up we'll let them flap their gums without professional advice when it's almost certainly against their best interests to do so. When I was sixteen, I can guarantee that I was better equipped to decide whether or not to smoke than I was in deciding whether or not to talk to cops. One decision requires a bit of common sense, the other is best suited to those with six years of schooling.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 9y ago
  but if the desire is to protect the rights of vulnerable people, and to make convictions more reliable, it's easier to just make sure anyone under 18 or with a borderline learning disability gets an Appropriate Adult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_adult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_adult
wtallis 9y ago
From the article: > Last spring the county adopted a new ordinance that requires juveniles detained at the Juvenile Detention Center in Seattle to get advice from an attorney before talking to law enforcement.

popmatrix 9y ago

I agree with the clarification of the Miranda for youths who may not fully understand it as it is recited today. From the article, "We put kids in jail and that could ruin their life, so we need to be really careful about when and how we do that.” This is a very important point and I hope they do not stop at clarifying Miranda rights. Extending the approach of helping youths lacking 'perspective and judgement', I'd hope for further investigation into the effects of reducing sentences of minor crimes for youths as well.

geofft 9y ago

> If you start to answer my questions, you can change your mind and stop at any time. I won’t ask you any more questions. Hmm. I thought the Supreme Court said that you had to explicitly state your refusal to answer questions, and simply stopping answering questions could be considered a response that can be used against you.

justin66 9y ago
> I thought the Supreme Court said that you had to explicitly state your refusal to answer questions, and simply stopping answering questions could be considered a response that can be used against you. The first half of that sentence is correct. Not so sure about the second half. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supreme_court_rules_in_miranda.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supre...
- slavik81 9y ago
  I'm not sure I understand this. What would have changed if he had said he was exercising his right to remain silent?
  - slavik81 9y ago
    From the opinion: > Both [the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney] protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring an interrogation to cease when either right is invoked. It seems that if he had explicitly stated he did not wish to talk, the interrogation would have ended immediately. Because it was not explicitly stated, the police were allowed to continue asking questions. After several hours of being asked questions, he broke his silence and answered. It appears that explicitly invoking your right to remain silent saves you a lot of stress.
basseq 9y ago
Anecdotally, I feel like there are interrogations where the police kept asking questions even after the subject refused to answer or exercised their right to silence. E.g., you have the right not to answer questions, not the right to silence those asking questions.

downandout 9y ago

If they are concerned enough about unnecessarily ruining lives to change the Miranda warning, why not focus more on exercising the most powerful tool we have in our criminal justice system: prosecutorial discretion? After all, the cops reading the Miranda warning can only bring people to jail; it’s the prosecutors that keep them there. Prosecutors have the ability to not file cases at all. They also have the ability to offer diversion programs, wherein accused criminals can voluntarily agree to community-based sanctions/supervision in exchange for their cases not being filed. These do exist in some jurisdictions today, but tend to be offered to a very small percentage of defendants. In short: if they really cared about ruining lives, they’d stop trying so hard to ruin lives (in all but the most serious cases). Changing the Miranda warning may be a very small step forward, but getting prosecutors on board is the only way to make a real difference.

sbarre 9y ago
Until they remove career-advancing incentives for prosecutors that are tied to case outcomes and numbers of filings, this probably won't happen.
- plussed_reader 9y ago
  And since CA is the example: you also remove the prosecutorial discretion when you codify things like mandatory minimum sentences.
  - geephroh 9y ago
    Ummm....WA actually, as in Seattle. But you're still not wrong since we have mandatory minimums here as well.
    - jff 9y ago
      > Ummm....WA actually, as in Seattle. Give it a few more years...
      - 9y ago

tuxxy 9y ago

>You have the right to remain silent, which means that you don’t have to say anything. >It’s OK if you don’t want to talk to me. They completely left the part out how whatever you say to the officer can be used as evidence in court (and perhaps against you). No kid is going to pick up on that implication. EDIT: No idea why I'm getting downvoted. Even with the rest of the text, it DOES NOT imply that whatever they say to the officer could cause them to lose their case in the future.

5ilv3r 9y ago
You missed it? "If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me."
- gknoy 9y ago
  They could have also added, "... and could even be used as evidence against you in court".
  - tuxxy 9y ago
    Exactly! Of course they can phrase it differently if needed. Just because the officer tells them that they can tell the judge what they say doesn't at all imply that it could cause the child to get in more trouble.
- mattnewport 9y ago
  I'd say it's missing anything as clear as "Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.", that implication is not obvious from the new warning to me.
  - eridius 9y ago
    How is that not an obvious implication though? Does anyone actually think "oh yeah I can tell the cop, who can tell the judge, but the judge definitely won't use that info in the courtroom!"

azernik 9y ago

> But brain scientists say young people often lack the perspective and judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest. And yet, the actual changes seem to mostly have to do with language skills, comprehension, and familiarity with the US legal system. Compare: Original Miranda warning: "You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish." Revised "for kids" Miranda warning: "You have the right to talk to a free lawyer right now. That free lawyer works for you and is available at any time – even late at night. That lawyer does not tell anyone what you tell them." Given that the original Miranda case had to do with immigrants, I think the revised version is actually much more fitting to the purpose than the current standard.

Chaebixi 9y ago

> If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me. It's missing the explicit warning that "what you say can and will be used against you in the court of law." I think they should add a clause to the end stating "and they can use this information against you to get you in trouble." This video is always relevant when the subject of talking to police comes up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

jamestimmins 9y ago
Agreed. This seems like an important clarification, because without it it sounds like talking with the police officer can't have serious negatives.
sparrish 9y ago
The Miranda warning is "Anything you say MAY be used against you in a court of law." It may not... But it definitely won't be used in your favor so keep silent and never answer questions from law enforcement without a lawyer present.
- lukas099 9y ago
  I always thought it was "CAN and WILL be use against you."
  - sparrish 9y ago
    That's just what they say in Hollywood. Common mistake that I wager most folks would report it says as well.

dcole2929 9y ago

I wonder how long after this goes into effect until we start hearing about all the one off cases where the officer "forgot" to use the new template to explain the miranda rights to a juvenile minority suspect. All in all, this seems like a step in the right direction, but somehow I can't help but expect this to just be abused by police like pretty much every other time we've given them explicit discretionary powers. Maybe I'm just jaded.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

Changing the wording seems more like a symptom of the real issue: we're collectively very poor at our constitutional literacy. If there's anything worth teaching in our schools, it's the rights and responsibilities we have as citizens of this country. "A republic, if you can keep it."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

0xbear 9y ago

For juveniles, IMO, nothing they say before meeting with their lawyer should be admissible in court. It’s as simple as that. These Miranda rights should just point blank tell them to shut up before they talk to a lawyer. Juveniles are just too easy for an adult to coerce a false confession from.

leksak 9y ago

I'm surprised Miranda rights are hard to understand and I live in another country. Guess I watched too much TV as a kid to be exposed to it enough for it to be recitable from memory... Hell, I know more of and about the US constitution than I do my own.