Advertisement

Systematic Assessment of Miranda Reasoning

  • Richard Rogers
  • Eric Y. Drogin
Chapter

Abstract

The Supreme Court of the United States in Miranda could never have imagined the profound misconceptions that have arisen about the five components of Miranda warnings and the three prongs of Miranda waivers. Although virtually everyone can confidently recite “you have the right to remain silent,” some arrestees believe in the stunningly false dichotomy that unless they take their chances and talk they will be convicted by their silence. Similar to Miranda comprehension, this chapter utilizes a hierarchical model for Miranda reasoning that builds on arrestees’ basic appreciation of their rights as they apply to persons in general as well as to their own personal circumstances. Next, Miranda misconceptions are examined, with an emphasis on how these may impair Miranda reasoning—as just illustrated concerning the right to silence. In addition to avoiding misconceptions, Miranda reasoning requires the ability to consider both sides of a waiver decision in relationship to immediate and long-term self-interests. In particular, arrestees—who are typically unable to think beyond their immediate inclinations (e.g., stop the questioning at any cost)—may not have the capacity for rationally considering the long-term consequences in their thinking and decisions. Alternatively, impulsive or otherwise poor judgement should not facilely be equated with compromised Miranda reasoning. Intelligent waivers must be considered with regard for the totality of the circumstances.

Keywords

Miranda waivers Miranda reasoning Miranda Reasoning Measure Function of Rights in Interrogation Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities 

References

  1. Belden, Russonello & Stewart, Inc. (2001). Indigent defense: Analysis of national survey. Washington, DC: National Legal Aid and Defender Association.Google Scholar
  2. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).Google Scholar
  3. Blackwood, H. L. (2013). Miranda reasoning and competent waiver decisions: Are models of legal decision making applicable? Unpublished dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
  4. Bonnie, R. J. (1992). The competence of criminal defendants: A theoretical reformulation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gillard, N. D., Rogers, R., Kelsey, K. R., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). An investigation of implied Miranda waivers and Powell wording in a mock-crime study. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldstein, N. E., Zelle, H., & Grisso, T. (2014). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI): Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  7. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of Miranda rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  9. Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177–189.Google Scholar
  10. Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Psychological Corporation. (2001). Wechsler individual achievement test (2nd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Rogers, R. (2006). Miranda Statements Scale (MSS). Unpublished measure, University of North Texas.Google Scholar
  13. Rogers, R. (2010). The Juvenile Miranda Quiz. Unpublished measure, University of North Texas.Google Scholar
  14. Rogers, R. (2011). Getting it wrong about Miranda rights: False beliefs, impaired reasoning, and professional neglect. American Psychologist, 66, 728–736.Google Scholar
  15. Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2013). Evaluation of malingering and related response styles. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, 2nd ed., pp. 517–539). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2015). Miranda rights and wrongs: Matters of justice. Court Review, 51, 150–156.Google Scholar
  18. Rogers, R., & Jackson, R. L. (2007). An introduction to insanity evaluations. In R. L. Jackson (Ed.), Learning forensic assessment (pp. 109–128). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Miranda and beyond: Competencies related to police investigations. In R. Rogers & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law (pp. 113–149). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Harrison, K. S., & Shuman, D. W. (2008a). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogers, R., Shuman, D. W., & Drogin, E. Y. (2008b). Miranda rights … and wrongs: Myths, methods, and model solutions. Criminal Justice, 23, 4–9.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights:” Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Drogin, E. Y., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2012). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y., Steadham, J. A., Clark, J. I., & Cramer, R. J. (2013a). General knowledge and misknowledge of Miranda rights: Are effective Miranda advisements still necessary? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Robinson, E. V., Steadham, J. A., & Drogin, E. Y. (2013b). Investigating the effects of repeated Miranda warnings: Do they perform a curative function on common Miranda misconceptions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31, 397–410.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). Mired in Miranda misconceptions: A study of legally involved juveniles at different levels of psychosocial maturity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., Carter, R. M., Henry, S. A., Drogin, E. Y., & Robinson, E. V. (2016b). An examination of juveniles’ Miranda abilities: Investigating differences in Miranda recall and reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Clark, J. I., Drogin, E. Y., Winningham, D. B., & Williams, M. M. (2016a). One American perspective on the rights of accused: An initial survey of Miranda rights in a broader context. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Carter, R. M., Henry, S. L., Williams, M. M., & Robinson, E. V. (2017). Validity and representative data of the MRCI with legally involved juveniles. Assessment, 24, 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, R., Robinson, E. V., & Henry, S. A. (2017a). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detainees. Assessment, 24(2), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers, R., Henry, S. A., Sharf, A. J., Robinson, E. V., & Williams, M. M. (2017b). Dodging self-incriminations: An examination of feigned Miranda abilities on the SAMA. Assessment, 24, 975–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Carter, R. M., Winningham, D. B., & Sternad, R. N. (2018). The MRCI with juvenile detainees: Optimizing performance or emphasizing ecological validity? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 36, 1–11.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Carter, R. M., Winningham, D. B., & Sternad, R. N. (2018a). The MRCI with juvenile detainees: Optimizing performance or emphasizing ecological validity? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Henry, S., & Drogin, E. Y. (2018b). Feigned Miranda impairment by legally involved juveniles: The vulnerability of forensic measures and the development of effective screens. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1269–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharf, A. J., Rogers, R., & Williams, M. M. (2017a). Reasoning your way out of Miranda rights: How juvenile detainees relinquish their Fifth Amendment protections. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharf, A. J., Rogers, R., Williams, M. M., & Drogin, E. Y. (2017b). Evaluating juvenile detainees’ Miranda misconceptions: The discriminant validity of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz. Psychological Assessment, 29, 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Viljoen, J. L., Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2007). Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: A comparison of legal standards. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Rogers
    • 1
  • Eric Y. Drogin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations