Maura Dolan has this article in the L.A. Times about the controversies regarding police questioning of teenagers and, in a few cases, children about serious crimes. Some people are arguing for bright-line rules to the effect that police can never question young people below some arbitrary cut-off age without a lawyer present, which for all practical purposes means they can't question them at all. As Justice Robert Jackson noted long ago, "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."*
A related issue is the culpability of minors for crimes. The story says,
On the Miranda point, the Supreme Court in Miranda expressly said that the procedures it laid out were not the last word, and it would be competent for legislatures to substitute other procedures to protect the right against compelled self-incrimination. Video recording of interrogations is an alternative that should be considered.
A related issue is the culpability of minors for crimes. The story says,
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said he would like Miranda rights to be eliminated and all interrogations videotaped. He called the brain research about adolescents' legal culpability "a bunch of hooey."Not quite. There is research about adolescents' brain development and mental capacity, and then there are extrapolations from that research about adolescents' legal culpability. It is the latter that I said are "a bunch of hooey." For example, there is no doubt that a process of central nervous system development called myelination is a work in progress in the late teen years. However, there is a great deal of doubt whether this fact and other products of research support the kinds of sweeping conclusions in cases such as Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama.
On the Miranda point, the Supreme Court in Miranda expressly said that the procedures it laid out were not the last word, and it would be competent for legislatures to substitute other procedures to protect the right against compelled self-incrimination. Video recording of interrogations is an alternative that should be considered.
Another quibble: Why is CJLF identified as "pro-death penalty" in an article that has nothing to do with the death penalty and is entirely about juveniles? We do not advocate the death penalty for juveniles. We did not file a brief in Roper v. Simmons, even though we do in most major U.S. Supreme Court death penalty cases.
* Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 59 (1949) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Update: I emailed Maura Dolan about it. She says, "You said you looked at the science and it was a bunch of hooey." Possibly a case of a reference I think is clear in context but the person hearing it takes in a way I never thought of. We had been discussing the Graham case and the argument being made that was allegedly based on the science. I looked at the science myself and found the argument unsupported by the science. "It" referred to the argument, not the science.
In writing, we try to edit out those ambiguous references, but when speaking extemporaneously you can't edit and some will slip through.
* Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 59 (1949) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Update: I emailed Maura Dolan about it. She says, "You said you looked at the science and it was a bunch of hooey." Possibly a case of a reference I think is clear in context but the person hearing it takes in a way I never thought of. We had been discussing the Graham case and the argument being made that was allegedly based on the science. I looked at the science myself and found the argument unsupported by the science. "It" referred to the argument, not the science.
In writing, we try to edit out those ambiguous references, but when speaking extemporaneously you can't edit and some will slip through.
Personally, I like "bunch of hooey" and think it a generous characterization.
"However, there is a great deal of doubt whether this fact and other products of research support the kinds of sweeping conclusions in cases such as Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama."
I think this concedes too much. The judgment is a moral one, not one of science. Liberals love the idea that conservatives are anti-science--but we shouldn't be bullied into arguing the issue on their turf. The use (or abuse) of science to undercut basic moral judgments about certain killers (for example, the 16 year old who slaughtered most of a family in Michigan) is simply wrong. We should categorically reject this line of argumentation and call into question the moral compasses of those who would do so.