Juveniles and the Reality of False Confession

Many investigators, both in the past and present of this day’s society, have wound up focusing on a juvenile as the main suspect of a homicide. In these not so rare cases, an interrogator is usually advised to take special care in questioning the suspect. In many places throughout the country a juvenile’s interviews and interrogations all have to be recorded in some way or another, usually by tape recorder, sometimes a video recorder; but not in all places. When Miranda rights are presented to a juvenile they must be explained efficiently and thoroughly in a way this specific child will understand. If a child doesn’t understand his or her rights you may as well not even waste your breath asking them questions. This goes hand in hand with the fact a parent or attorney unquestionably should be present during interrogation. Sometimes, especially when a parent or attorney isn’t present, things can get a little out of hand during interrogation. An example of such ignorance was printed by a threesome of people Bill Moushey, Elizabeth Perry and Cynthia Levy, part of The Innocence Institute of Point Park University, who researched juvenile confessions and came up with the article Fear and Loathing Without Representation Leads To Admissions they now contest. “Paul Riggettz,” interrogated without a lawyer, confessed and “reenacted” the “murders of his wife and two children, and the next day recanted saying he confessed only after police held a gun to his head.” However ten months later seventeen-year-old “John Moss,” also interrogated without a parent or attorney, “accused police of beating a confession out of him in the same homicides, causing Mr. Reggettz to walk free and him to be sent away for Page 2 life.” The police admit the juvenile confessed without a parent or attorney, but deny using “physical coercion.” What should happen is a parent or attorney should inarguably be notified even without the child’s consent. A juvenile is too young to vote. How is someone not responsible enough to choose a candidate supposed be responsible enough to make the decision to waive his or her rights? Rebecca Diloreto described several incidents where a juvenile was wrongfully interrogated in the Supreme Court document, Juvenile Confessions/Right Against Self-incrimination. One of these is the case Woods v. Clusen where a 16 ½ year old murder suspect “who had no prior criminal record and no serious previous contact with criminal justice system confessed involuntarily; suspect was awakened early one morning by police officers hovering in his bedroom, was handcuffed and led away from home ostensibly for theft of chain saw, was stripped of his clothes, given institutional garb, but no shoes upon arrival at police station, and was fingerprinted and photographed and led to interrogation room where he was confronted with graphic pictures of murder scene and subjected to interrogation.” If this was an adult, do you think this would have gone differently? An adult knows when the law is wrongfully mistreating them, for the most part. Well, unless the adult has the same mental capacity as a teenager. On the other hand children are subject to do as they are told as long as it is an adult who is asking them to do it. They are taught consequences come from disobeying elders. This is an indisputable reason why a parent/guardian or an attorney should be present for the benefit of the child. The way an interrogator talks to the interrogated is tricky to say the least. They use special strategies (mostly lying) to get adults to confess to crime they commit, when it Page 3 comes to juveniles, on the other hand, most of the time all you have to do is make them believe they can go home when they are done. Cara A. Gardner, the head of the North Carolina Law Review Association, published in September of 2008, a recent development on Failing to serve and protect: A Proposal for an Amendment to a Juveniles Right to a Parent, Guardian, or Custodian During a Police Interrogation* announced, “One of the most common reasons cited by teenage false confessors is that by confessing, they would be able to go home.” The statement you, can go home when we are done is, of course, usually proven to be anything but true. Police and investigators will stop at nothing to solve a homicide, even if it means putting an innocent teenager’s life on the line. When it comes to the case as a whole, most of the time it will be thrown out of court if a child is wrongfully treated or denied his rights during interrogation, and rightfully so. If the “totality of the circumstances test,” described by Ann Gergen in her article on Constitutional Issues in Juvenile Interrogation, is carefully considered, when interrogating a child the evidence will undoubtedly hold up better in court. Outside of the “totalality of the circumstances test,” having a parent or attorney present is by far the most important thing to consider before interrogating a child of any age. Even though it would be most parents’ decision to be called in while his or her child is being interrogated, it’s not a law in any state. But it should be. The rate of juvenile false confession will not improve, unless we improve our juvenile interrogation procedure first. I’m telling you, making a parent or attorney’s presence mandatory to every juvenile interrogation would make all the difference.