
King County rolls out Miranda rights tailored for young people - curtis
http://kuow.org/post/king-county-rolls-out-miranda-rights-tailored-young-people
======
downandout
If they are concerned enough about unnecessarily ruining lives to change the
Miranda warning, why not focus more on exercising the most powerful tool we
have in our criminal justice system: prosecutorial discretion? After all, the
cops reading the Miranda warning can only bring people to jail; it’s the
prosecutors that keep them there.

Prosecutors have the ability to not file cases at all. They also have the
ability to offer diversion programs, wherein accused criminals can voluntarily
agree to community-based sanctions/supervision in exchange for their cases not
being filed. These do exist in some jurisdictions today, but tend to be
offered to a very small percentage of defendants.

In short: if they really cared about ruining lives, they’d stop trying so hard
to ruin lives (in all but the most serious cases). Changing the Miranda
warning may be a very small step forward, but getting prosecutors on board is
the only way to make a real difference.

~~~
paulddraper
To quote another comment "prosecutors are as vicious as the law allows them to
be".

That's their job.

* Legislators create the law. (legislative branch)

* Prosecutors sue for enforcement of the law. (executive branch)

* Judgement to use JUDGEment in applying the law. (judical branch)

If you have sucky laws or indescriminate judges, fix those. Don't cast
dispersions on prosecutors for prosecuting laws they didn't write, for
sentences they don't make.

Not maintaining the balance of powers is how you wind up with out-of-whack and
mismanaged governments.

\---

EDIT: Prosecutors are the inverse of defense attornies. Why is the DA
defending this scumbag of a human being?!?! Because that's their job: provide
the best possible defense for accused criminals. Likewise, prosecutors provide
the best possible prosecution. Denegrating either one for their role is
misunderstanding their functions in the judical system.

~~~
taeric
Be careful though, this is an easy argument into "just following orders."
Which, nobody should ever be comfortable with that argument.

~~~
apendleton
No, this is a distinct argument. It's that this system was designed to
function best when everyone does their jobs. Attorneys in the US are supposed
to be zealous advocates. The judge and jury don't know going in whether the
person did it or not, but the hope is that if the prosecutor fights their
hardest (even if the accused is innocent) and the defense attorney fights
their hardest (even if their client is guilty) that hopefully ultimately the
one that comes out ahead will be the one that's right. It's not a perfect
system, but this is how it's meant to work.

~~~
taeric
That is the exact same argument. Just instead of "lawyer" pick "any government
job."

And be clear that was never the case. Prosecutorial discretion is and has
almost always been the case.

I could just as easily claim that attorneys in the US are supposed to be about
upholding the spirit, as much as the letter, of the law.

------
Chaebixi
> If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult
> court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me.

It's missing the explicit warning that "what you say can and will be used
against you in the court of law." I think they should add a clause to the end
stating "and they can use this information against you to get you in trouble."

This video is always relevant when the subject of talking to police comes up:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

~~~
sparrish
The Miranda warning is "Anything you say MAY be used against you in a court of
law." It may not...

But it definitely won't be used in your favor so keep silent and never answer
questions from law enforcement without a lawyer present.

~~~
lukas099
I always thought it was "CAN and WILL be use against you."

~~~
sparrish
That's just what they say in Hollywood. Common mistake that I wager most folks
would report it says as well.

------
13of40
Why just youth? I can't see how it would hurt to switch to this for everyone.
You can get your free lawyer to explain in adult-speak later.

~~~
lightbyte
Did you read the article?

>But brain scientists say young people often lack the perspective and
judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest.

This is why they made a version that goes into more detail.

~~~
mulmen
Why would phrasing add perspective or judgement?

------
popmatrix
I agree with the clarification of the Miranda for youths who may not fully
understand it as it is recited today.

From the article, "We put kids in jail and that could ruin their life, so we
need to be really careful about when and how we do that.” This is a very
important point and I hope they do not stop at clarifying Miranda rights.
Extending the approach of helping youths lacking 'perspective and judgement',
I'd hope for further investigation into the effects of reducing sentences of
minor crimes for youths as well.

------
tuxxy
>You have the right to remain silent, which means that you don’t have to say
anything.

>It’s OK if you don’t want to talk to me.

They completely left the part out how whatever you say to the officer can be
used as evidence in court (and perhaps against you). No kid is going to pick
up on that implication.

EDIT: No idea why I'm getting downvoted. Even with the rest of the text, it
DOES NOT imply that whatever they say to the officer could cause them to lose
their case in the future.

~~~
5ilv3r
You missed it?

"If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult
court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me."

~~~
Chaebixi
Have you ever watched this video?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

All kinds of people think they can talk their way out of an arrest. Unsavvy
people might interpret that statement as saying their excuses and explanations
will passed up to people who will listen sympathetically or at least could be
convinced. They don't realize their statements can only cause them harm. I
think that kind of misconception would be especially true for juveniles.

~~~
derekp7
What if you are in a situation where the officer really thinks you are
innocent, but has to follow through with a complaint? Saying you want a lawyer
and not talking at all may make the officer change his mind, thinking you have
something to hide, and want to pursue the case further, whereas if the officer
has already made up his mind that you are innocent, then saying what they want
to hear can work in your favor.

Of course the problem is you really don't know what the officer thinks. But
you may be able to pick up on that if you are good at reading body language.

~~~
zaroth
There is not a single thing a completely and perfectly innocent person can say
to a cop in their own defense which would not almost certainly harm them for
saying it. Other than your name, that you are excercising your right to remain
silent (important to state this explicitly), and you would like to speak to a
lawyer.

Please watch this if you haven't, it's very entertaining and absolutely true:
"Don't Talk to the Police"
[https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE](https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE)

------
aklemm
This is excellent. Rethinking these types of seemingly small things is a great
way to make progress.

------
geofft
> _If you start to answer my questions, you can change your mind and stop at
> any time. I won’t ask you any more questions._

Hmm. I thought the Supreme Court said that you had to explicitly state your
refusal to answer questions, and simply stopping answering questions could be
considered a response that can be used against you.

~~~
justin66
> I thought the Supreme Court said that you had to explicitly state your
> refusal to answer questions, and simply stopping answering questions could
> be considered a response that can be used against you.

The first half of that sentence is correct. Not so sure about the second half.

[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-
court/2010/06/supre...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-
court/2010/06/supreme_court_rules_in_miranda.html)

~~~
slavik81
I'm not sure I understand this. What would have changed if he had said he was
exercising his right to remain silent?

~~~
slavik81
From the opinion:

> Both [the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney] protect the
> privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring an
> interrogation to cease when either right is invoked.

It seems that if he had explicitly stated he did not wish to talk, the
interrogation would have ended immediately. Because it was not explicitly
stated, the police were allowed to continue asking questions. After several
hours of being asked questions, he broke his silence and answered.

It appears that explicitly invoking your right to remain silent saves you a
lot of stress.

------
0xbear
For juveniles, IMO, nothing they say before meeting with their lawyer should
be admissible in court. It’s as simple as that. These Miranda rights should
just point blank tell them to shut up before they talk to a lawyer. Juveniles
are just too easy for an adult to coerce a false confession from.

------
azernik
> But brain scientists say young people often lack the perspective and
> judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest.
> And yet, the actual changes seem to mostly have to do with language skills,
> comprehension, and familiarity with the US legal system. Compare: Original
> Miranda warning: "You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking
> to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in
> the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you
> before any questioning if you wish." Revised "for kids" Miranda warning:
> "You have the right to talk to a free lawyer right now. That free lawyer
> works for you and is available at any time – even late at night. That lawyer
> does not tell anyone what you tell them." Given that the original Miranda
> case had to do with immigrants, I think the revised version is actually much
> more fitting to the purpose than the current standard.

------
dcole2929
I wonder how long after this goes into effect until we start hearing about all
the one off cases where the officer "forgot" to use the new template to
explain the miranda rights to a juvenile minority suspect. All in all, this
seems like a step in the right direction, but somehow I can't help but expect
this to just be abused by police like pretty much every other time we've given
them explicit discretionary powers. Maybe I'm just jaded.

------
matt_wulfeck
Changing the wording seems more like a symptom of the real issue: we're
collectively very poor at our constitutional literacy.

If there's anything worth teaching in our schools, it's the rights and
responsibilities we have as citizens of this country.

 _" A republic, if you can keep it."_

------
leksak
I'm surprised Miranda rights are hard to understand and I live in another
country. Guess I watched too much TV as a kid to be exposed to it enough for
it to be recitable from memory... Hell, I know more of and about the US
constitution than I do my own.

------
Top19
This seems great, especially since having a criminal record early can
destabilize you so much long term.

Also keep in mind that just yesterday there was an editorial in the Washington
Post blasting Seattle’s city council for losing their marbles (like
establishing a city income tax of 2.5% even though income tax is down like 30%
from 30 years ago).

Seattle’s City Council, while definitely kind of weird, has been doing some
really innovative and awesome stuff, they are trying to learn hard from the
mistakes of San Francisco. For instance they’ve established a number of groups
to support “renters rights” to counter NIMBY-esque homeowners for instance.

~~~
geephroh
It's actually got absolutely nothing to do with City of Seattle government.
This is an initiative by the King County (the county where Seattle is located)
Prosecutor's Office and the Sheriff's Department. It does not (yet, hopefully)
apply to Seattle Police Department or the Seattle City Prosecutor's Office. So
while many of the affected youth may end up benefitting from the initiative if
they land at the KC Juvenile Justice Center, if they're arrested by an SPD
officer, they're likely to hear the same old Miranda.

(And another point of clarification 'cause I read it too and can't help
myself: an opinion piece by George Will isn't exactly an "editorial." I'd
seriously doubt that the WAPost editorial board would agree with many of his
dubious positions in the column.)

------
DanBC
Why don't they just automatically call lawyers for young people? That would be
a better way to protect the rights of young people.

~~~
emeraldd
Having the right to an attorney does not mean that you are required to have an
attorney. On top of that, if the persons family already has an attorney then
I'd imagine there are all kinds of issues with adding a court appointed one to
the mix.

~~~
mikestew
Fine, then just make it a requirement that _some_ kind of attorney be present
before interrogating an underage suspect. I mean, hell, you can't sell them
cigarettes or liquor, you can't have sex with them, we don't let them drive
before they're almost an adult. Yet when the cops show up we'll let them flap
their gums without professional advice when it's almost certainly against
their best interests to do so. When I was sixteen, I can guarantee that I was
better equipped to decide whether or not to smoke than I was in deciding
whether or not to talk to cops. One decision requires a bit of common sense,
the other is best suited to those with six years of schooling.

------
Matheus28
>If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult
court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me.

Only if it hurts your case [1]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
(sorry, don't remember the exact time, but the video is great, watch it in
full anyway)

~~~
lightbyte
That's why they say "I _can_ tell" and not "I _must_ tell"

~~~
Gracana
Sure, it's technically right, but it's not good communication. A kid (and most
adults) won't pick up on what that implies.

