A Critical Discussion of Youth Miranda Waivers, Racial Inequity, and Proposed Policy Reforms

Courts often assume that youth and adult suspects are equally capable of making decisions about whether to talk to police officers-decisions that carry serious long-term consequences. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that prior to custodial interrogation, police officers must remind suspects of their rights to silence and legal counsel, and a suspect must waive their rights "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently" for police to continue questioning. This legal standard was extended to youth without affording them additional protections, despite decades of research on adolescent cognitive and socioemotional development demonstrating that youth have inherent difficulties understanding and appreciating their Miranda rights. Navigating interrogation situations is likely even more challenging for youth of color, who not only face disadvantages due to their developmental immaturity, but also systemic racism within the legal system. As biased police practices put youth of color at a higher risk of police contact, it is especially important to consider how adolescent development and racial bias interact to impact youths' ability to make valid Miranda waivers. Researchers and legal advocates have made multiple youth interrogation reform recommendations, but many of these recommendations fall short by failing to take into full account the impact of adolescent development and racial bias on youths' ability to navigate interrogation. This paper analyzes proposals for reform through a developmental and racial equity lens and makes recommendations about future research needed to determine the most effective way to protect youth during interrogation.