When someone is brought in for questioning they are read their Miranda Rights and are asked if they want a lawyer. Some say yes and some say no. After all, it is their choice if they want the lawyer to be in there with them or not. But when the person brought in for questioning is a minor the battle field changes entirely. They may understand their rights a little, but not all the way. Because of this they are more prone to coaxed confessions than adults are.
They may think that because it is a police officer talking to them that they should answer all the questions that are asked of them. After all, they had been taught to always answer when a cop talks to you. With that in mind their right to remain silent is thrown entirely out the window. The police then say that anything you say that incriminates you in a crime will be used against you in a court of law. That too works against a minor that is questioned, if the police think they are guilty of the crime that is.
Then comes the point that makes everyone cringe when it comes to false confessions with minors: the police treat the minor like they are adults when they interrogate them alone. That right there is a bunch of bull. For one when the police interrogate a minor one thing should always be in place: a lawyer sitting next to the minor. If that did happen the police wouldn't be able to use all the tricks that they do to get a suspect to confess, even if they didn't commit the crime in the first place.
If they minor is to fully understand his interrogation he or she must know what the police can and cannot do. The police can fabricate evidence and forge witness statements; in short, they can flat out lie to the suspect. For example, in a murder case where the victim is living with the suspect the police can say that they found blood in his or her room in order to get a confession. Another thing the police are allowed to do is leave the suspect alone for short stretches of time, which is something that they use a lot. When this is done the suspect gets uncomfortable and basically his mind defeats him or her.
The next thing they can do is, in my opinion, a bunch of bull: the police are allowed to question a suspect before an arrest without telling them their rights. They use that trick just to get the suspect to stay and confess. If the suspect knew their rights before questioning then we wouldn't have to worry about coaxed confessions. The moment the police would start to use illegal tactics then the suspect could just walk out of the station if they haven't yet been charged or ask for a lawyer if they have. The police can even question the suspect's family for weaknesses in the suspect. That I don't find wrong, but I do think it is a low blow. They can even urge the suspect to confess for the good of his or her family. To me that sounds like coaxing the suspect.
An obvious thing the police can't do is beat the suspect. One story says that that is the very reason that the confession of grave robber and murderer Ed Gein was thrown out, because the sheriff banged Gein's head against the wall during his interrogation. The police also can't threaten the suspect of promise better treatment in court. Only the District Attorney can make a promise like that to the suspect. They also can't deny the suspect food, water, sleep, or bathroom visits. From my point of view if they do that the police involved with the interrogation should be charged with torture. The biggie that the police can't do is question the suspect when he executes his right to remain silent and is waiting for his lawyer. If they do that and you confess the confession will be automatically thrown out.
Now, getting back to minors and interrogation, do you really believe that a 9-year old boy or girl is going to know all these rules, much less understand them? I think not. With that in mind I believe that their should be a new law about interrogation: if the police are interrogating a minor a lawyer should be in the room at all times to advise the minor if they don't understand their rights or if the police are doing a trick that could leave to a false confession.
What evidence do I have to support making this a law you may ask? I only have two words to answer you with: Michael Crowe. When Michael was interrogated for the murder of his sister he repeatedly told the detectives that he didn't kill her, but they kept pressing him and pressing him, telling him about finding blood in his room, slowly feeding him facts about the crime until he broke down and said he did it. If Michael had had a lawyer in the room with him he wouldn't have confessed to the murder of his sister. The fact of the matter is all the police had on him was a suspicion brought on his reaction to her death and his coaxed confession.
Just because he reacted differently than the rest of the family doesn't mean he didn't have the same feelings. When my grandma died most of my family cried but I didn't. I just prayed and wrote my one outlet of emotion; Michael played video games, his one apparent outlet. If their had been a law stating that minors automatically get a lawyer for questioning then Michael would never have been coaxed into confessing to the murder of his sister. Not only that, but coaxed confessions would never happen again, for minors anyway.
