Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
established that a criminal suspect must be warned specifically of his rights to silence and to counsel before interrogation, whether a juvenile suspect has the legal and psychological capacities to understand these rights is subject to question. 2 Doubts concerning minors' comprehension of their Miranda rights are increased by the fact that despite receiving the warnings, most juveniles in pretrial proceedings waive rather than invoke their rights. 3The validity of Miranda rights waivers by juveniles, therefore, is a perplexing, 4 significant 5 issue.Recognizing that waivers by juveniles merit special consideration and scrutiny not accorded those by adults, courts have generally followed one of two approaches.Either they have required an after-thefact review of all the circumstances attending the waiver, or they have required initial safeguards followed by a review of whether the safeguards were effected.The first approach, adopted by the majority of jurisdictions, mandates a consideration of the "totality of the circumstances" in determining whether a juvenile's waiver of his Miranda rights was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. 6Thus, in assessing the validity of a waiver, courts are free to consider, inter alia,
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas Grisso (1980) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: