Miranda Warnings and Waivers: Determinants of Comprehension and Reasoning

米兰达声明和弃权：理解和推理的决定因素SES--0615934摘要最高法院在米兰达诉亚利桑那州案（1966年）中规定了第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。米兰达确立了两项基本权利：沉默权和聘请律师的权利。 虽然没有具体说明措辞，但它要求以明确和毫不含糊的语言向嫌疑人发出米兰达警告（第468页）。最高法院承认，这些权利必须得到明确理解和合理适用。否则，它们就会成为空洞的形式（米兰达，第466页）。 明确和易于理解的米兰达警告对正义的目标至关重要。辩护律师希望他们的当事人的权利得到严格的保护。法官在确保刑事司法系统得到公正管理方面也有这一目标。检察官在保护米兰达权利方面也有既得利益，这样关键的供词就不会被拒绝。最高法院允许各个司法管辖区确定米兰达警告的具体措辞和内容。我们之前的NSF奖项评估了美国司法管辖区目前使用的米兰达警告的范围和复杂性。这项研究发现了532个不同的米兰达版本，在复杂性，语言和内容上有很大的不同。米兰达警告和弃权的范围从49到547个字。对于充分的理解，所需的阅读水平从2.8年级到研究生教育不等。米兰达警告的内容在所包含的信息类型方面也有很大差异。 追求正义的一个关键问题是确定哪些米兰达警告可以很容易地理解。由于米兰达警告可能是口头的（经常发生在社区逮捕）或书面形式，它是必不可少的测试被告的阅读和听力理解如何影响他们的能力，理解米兰达的权利。本研究的一个重要贡献是系统地评估了针对不同教育和种族背景的被告的代表性米兰达警告。这项研究的一个潜在成果是一套模型警告，可以理解的大多数嫌疑人在拘留。一个更直接的成就将是识别那些由于高度抽象或需要大学水平的能力而无法理解的警告。更广泛的影响：基本推理和米兰达豁免。最高法院理解米兰达权利的重要性，并坚持认为任何放弃这些权利的行为都必须是明智的。最近，最高法院在爱荷华州诉托瓦尔案（2004年）中坚持认为，有效的弃权要求被告知道他在做什么，他的选择是在睁大眼睛的情况下做出的。“这项研究是对被告关于米兰达弃权的基本推理的第一次广泛调查。至关重要的是，任何决定都必须基于对选择的认识。在他们被捕后的几天内进行评估，我们将研究哪些因素似乎决定了被告是否理性地思考米兰达的决定。许多刑事被告人的学术成就和智力能力有限。少数人是高度可接受的，通常沿着当权者。另有10%至15%的人患有严重的精神障碍，影响他们的日常运作。哪些缺陷对米兰达判决很重要？一个适当的社会关切是，被告是否会根据任何心理异常声称能力受损。本研究中的研究代表了确定极少数被告（估计为2.8%）的重要的第一步，这些被告的米兰达能力可能会受到损害。

Miranda Warnings and Waivers: Determinants of Comprehension and ReasoningAbstract for SES--0615934 The Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) enshrined the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Miranda established two fundamental rights: the right to silence and the right to an attorney. While not specifying the wording, it requires that Miranda warnings be given to suspects in clear and unequivocal language (p. 468). The Supreme Court recognized that these rights must be clearly understood and rationally applied. Otherwise, they become empty formalities (Miranda, p. 466). Clear and easily understood Miranda warnings are critical to the goals of justice. Defense attorneys want their clients' rights to be rigorously protected. Judges share this goal in ensuring that the criminal justice system is fairly administered. Prosecutors also have a vested interest in protecting Miranda rights so that pivotal confessions are not disallowed. The Supreme Court allowed individual jurisdictions to establish the specific wording and content of the Miranda warnings. Our previous NSF award evaluated the range and complexity of Miranda warnings currently used in American jurisdictions. That study found 532 distinct Miranda versions that differed substantially in their complexity, language, and content. Miranda warnings and waivers range from 49 to 547 words. For adequate comprehension, required reading levels ranged dramatically from grade 2.8 to postgraduate education. The content of Miranda warnings also varied significantly in the types of information that is included. A critical issue to the pursuit of justice is identifying which Miranda warnings can be easily understood. Because Miranda warnings may be given verbally (as often occurs in community arrests) or in a written format, it is essential to test how defendants' reading and listening comprehension affect their ability to understand Miranda rights. One important contribution of this study is its systematic evaluation of representative Miranda warnings for defendants of different educational and ethnic backgrounds. A potential outgrowth of this research is a set of model warnings that can be comprehended by most suspects in custody. A more immediate achievement will be the identification of warnings that cannot be understood because they are highly abstract or require college-level abilities.Broader Impacts:Basic Reasoning and Miranda Waivers. The Supreme Court understood the importance of Miranda rights and insisted that any surrender of these rights must be done intelligently. Recently, the Supreme Court in Iowa v. Tovar (2004) insisted that a valid waiver required that the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open." This study is the first extensive investigation of a defendant's basic reasoning about Miranda waivers. Vitally important, any decision must be based on an awareness of the choices. Evaluated within several days of their arrest, we will examine what factors appear to determine whether defendants think rationally about their decisions.Mental Capacities and Miranda Decisions. Many criminal defendants are limited in their academic achievement and intellectual abilities. Small numbers are highly suggestible and typically go along with persons in authority. Another 10 to 15% have serious mental disorders that affect their day-to-day functioning. Which of these deficits are important to Miranda decisions? An appropriate societal concern is whether defendants will claim impaired capacities, based on any psychological abnormality. The research in this study represents an important first step in identifying the very small number of defendants (estimated at 2.8%), whose Miranda abilities are likely to be compromised.