• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When police are interrogating a minor suspect for a crime...

When police are interrogating a minor suspect for a crime... (see post #1)


  • Total voters
    35
Legally the minor has to have an adult advocate with them before police can question them. Normally that is the parents unless the suspected crime is child abuse or some such or if the parents are unavailable. In which case they will call in a child advocate from social services.

Then maybe the question should switch from requirement to enforcement. Because from what I see and read it seldom to never happens that way, and there is never any sort of negative consequence for ignoring any requirement.
 
That's not an absolute requirement nationwide. :no:

All suspects must be read their Miranda rights, regardless of age.

However, whether or not and at what age a minor can be questioned without the presence/consent of his parents, a social services rep., or can personally waive his rights to an attorney depends on State law.
And even then, only if they've been arrested or otherwise officially detained. Not if they're "just having a chat".
 
When police are interrogating a minor suspect for a crime...

... should the police be required to notify the parents and give them the ability to be present during an interrogation and/or to consent to their kid being interrogated?

Interesting question. Don't minors have the same rights as others, to have a lawyer present? It would seem to me that if you interrogated a minor without someone present, like a parent, guardian, or attorney, then that interrogation would not be admissible as evidence. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
And even then, only if they've been arrested or otherwise officially detained. Not if they're "just having a chat".

This is correct. Police officer's will frequently engage a detained suspect in "conversation" to try to establish grounds for an arrest.

Miranda is not required until the suspect is actually placed under arrest...but the pre-arrest conversation can be presented both on the arrest report and during an officer's sworn witness testimony.

This is why I always tell people to provide their required identification when stopped and then say nothing beyond periodically asking if they are free to go.

For example, when asked by an officer "do you know why I stopped you" during a traffic or other stop, the answer should always be "No." From that point on let them do all the talking.
 
Last edited:
Interesting question. Don't minors have the same rights as others, to have a lawyer present? It would seem to me that if you interrogated a minor without someone present, like a parent, guardian, or attorney, then that interrogation would not be admissible as evidence. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, they have that right, but courts have ruled that you must demand for your right, that it does not need to be just given to you. You have to say, "I want a lawyer.", or similar.
 
Yes. People often get that mixed up with the age of majority. I thought that was what Captain really meant.

Ah, so they are not legally able to consent to many things as a minor BUT the 'age of consent' has a specific meaning.

Thank you.
 
Yes, they have that right, but courts have ruled that you must demand for your right, that it does not need to be just given to you. You have to say, "I want a lawyer.", or similar.

But since minors are minors (and can't even sign a legal contract) it would seem that any testimony they give during an interrogation without an adult present to defend them in some way, then that testimony would not be admissible in court. Those are my thoughts. I don't really know if that is a fact or not, but it should be.
 
But since minors are minors (and can't even sign a legal contract) it would seem that any testimony they give during an interrogation without an adult present to defend them in some way, then that testimony would not be admissible in court. Those are my thoughts. I don't really know if that is a fact or not, but it should be.

Age of <whatever> only works in the direction that the powers that be want it to work.
 
When police are interrogating a minor suspect for a crime...

... should the police be required to notify the parents and give them the ability to be present during an interrogation and/or to consent to their kid being interrogated?

Meh, depends on how we wish to write it up. With the proper label we can forgo even Habeas corpus. Or even waterboard the little bastard.
 
When police are interrogating a minor suspect for a crime...

... should the police be required to notify the parents and give them the ability to be present during an interrogation and/or to consent to their kid being interrogated?

Yes, because even a lot of adults are too stupid to know they need a lawyer present.

The fact that the police can legally lie to a suspect should make this mandatory.

A minor will more likely believe the cop when he lies.
 
Yes, because even a lot of adults are too stupid to know they need a lawyer present.

The fact that the police can legally lie to a suspect should make this mandatory.

A minor will more likely believe the cop when he lies.

I'm with ya.
 
In that scenario, I agree. That would be a legit exception.

ETA: The kid would be the victim, though, not the alleged perpetrator.

In such a situation, then the minor should still have an independent adult present to safeguard the minor's rights.
 
When police are interrogating a minor suspect for a crime...

... should the police be required to notify the parents and give them the ability to be present during an interrogation and/or to consent to their kid being interrogated?

I did not participate in the poll because the choices were don't cover the how i would answer. I think the parents or their attorney should be allowed to be present during interrogations, however i don't think the police should need their consent for interrogation.
 
When police are interrogating a minor suspect for a crime...

... should the police be required to notify the parents and give them the ability to be present during an interrogation and/or to consent to their kid being interrogated?

For no reason whatsoever should a minor be questioned without the parent present.
 
I did not participate in the poll because the choices were don't cover the how i would answer. I think the parents or their attorney should be allowed to be present during interrogations, however i don't think the police should need their consent for interrogation.

So you think that the police should be allowed to take kids to a police station without notifying parents and interrogate a child alone in a room for hours on end not even notifying the parents where the kid is? Dude... that is ****ing kidnapping!!! :lol:
 
I think it really depends on the nature of the inquiry. For example, if the kid is being interviewed because the parents themselves were reported for abuse... no. And we do really need more protection for kids in these situations.

The scenario is calling for police interrogating a kid for the kids crime...
 
Back
Top Bottom