• 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

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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?
 
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?

Not unless they are a person of interest. JMVHO.
 
Not unless they are a person of interest. JMVHO.

What's the difference between a "person of interest" and a "suspect". They claim there's a difference, but I don't buy it. In generic talk police will say that everybody is a suspect until they're not. If you find yourself in an interrogation room being asked about your whereabouts at certain times, you are a suspect.
 
Yes. I would think that's obvious.
 
Considering a parent is liable/responsible for a minor...yes indeedie...
 
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 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.
 
I think it should depend on the same criteria which determines if the minor has reached the age of general consent. (This is my opinion, not a statement of the law. Each State has it's own procedures.)

That means if the minor is below the State age of consent then IMO that State has already recognized the child is not old enough to make an informed decision. Therefore, they must needs be too young to consent to giving up their right to remain silent. In such situations IMO the parent's should be informed asap so they can act to invoke Miranda on behalf of the minor child and then obtain an attorney.

If the minor is at or over the State's age of consent, then IMO they are old enough to make an informed decision about their Miranda rights. In such case's IMO it should be up to the minor to invoke his rights and request an attorney.

In any case, I don't think it is a good idea for parent's to be present in the room, although they can observe. I'd prefer in either case that an attorney be present to protect the interests of the minor. Parent's, not understanding the law or the consequences of their own acts/statements may create a greater problem if they are there and able to interject.

In all cases the parents should at least be notified their minor child has been arrested so that they can act appropriately.
 
Last edited:
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.

In that scenario, I agree. That would be a legit exception.

ETA: The kid would be the victim, though, not the alleged perpetrator.
 
Last edited:
I think it should depend on the same criteria which determines if the minor has reached the age of general consent.

That means if the minor is below the State age of consent then that State has already recognized the child is not old enough to make an informed decision. Therefore, they must needs be too young to consent to giving up their right to remain silent.

If the minor is at or over the State's age of consent, then IMO they are old enough to make an informed decision about their Miranda rights.

In any case, I don't think it is a good idea for parent's to be present in the room, although they can observe. I'd prefer in either case that an attorney be present to protect the interests of the minor. Parent's, not understanding the law or the consequences of their own acts/statements may create a greater problem if they are there and able to interject.

In all cases the parents should be at least notified their minor child has been arrested so that they can act to obtain an attorney.
That's fair.
 
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?

A minor is required to either have a parent/guardian or a legal advocate in the room with them at all times during the investigation.

If no such representation is in the room for the interrogation, all of the information gathered by the questioning officer can be thrown out of court.
 
What's the difference between a "person of interest" and a "suspect". They claim there's a difference, but I don't buy it. In generic talk police will say that everybody is a suspect until they're not. If you find yourself in an interrogation room being asked about your whereabouts at certain times, you are a suspect.

I was careless. I missed the suspect part. My bad. And I’m with you, a person of interest is a suspect. That question isn’t easy to answer, is it? On the one hand.. yet on the other. I guess here’s where I’d land: if it is legally required he be Mirandized, then his parents should be notified and given a reasonable amount of time to show up or give consent. If that doesn’t happen, then I think a public defender should be present. Not appointed. Just temporary.

If you’re not old enough by law to sign a legal contract, why would we ever assume a juvie understands his rights?

Seems like a simple question, but, IMO, it’s really not.

It is my understanding, and I sure could be wrong, that the Miranda warning is not always necessary in preliminary questioning.
 
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?

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.
 
I agree, parents may observe but never be in the interview room. That's where an attorney belongs. Parents do more harm than good.

Where the system gets minors is that minors have no right to bail. So they might set up in jail for months or even over a year. They're told they can get out if they plead guilty, and do because juvenile placement is usually a much better deal than the local jail. Better visitation, sunlight, food, etc.They also miss out on a lot of school work while in the jail, though the placement facility will have school, they can get far enough behind that it's hardly worth trying to graduate.

Minors are also used by adult criminals, usually a relation of theirs; they take the rap for a felony because they will get juvy time while the actual adult perpetrator would do serious prison time. I've personally seen this happen. However, if the juvy is told he will be tried as an adult, his story quickly changes.

I would never say a thing to police until I had an attorney; even if I was innocent. In court, it's not about what actually happened, it's about how it can be made to look. Neither side are angels looking for truth. It's called an adversarial system for a reason; both sides fight to win. Truth becomes a victim.

BTW; I'm a concealed weapon carrier. My attorney told me if I ever do have to shoot, don't make the 911 call myself; have someone else do it. Or if I have to do it give my name, address and that there's been a shooting, and hang up. He said 911 operators are trained to keep you talking to get more information out of you that might be twisted to use against you in court.

So yeah, definitely a lawyer before the juvy says anything; and no parents present. that's the safe approach.
 
I think it should depend on the same criteria which determines if the minor has reached the age of general consent. (This is my opinion, not a statement of the law. Each State has it's own procedures.)

That means if the minor is below the State age of consent then IMO that State has already recognized the child is not old enough to make an informed decision. Therefore, they must needs be too young to consent to giving up their right to remain silent. In such situations IMO the parent's should be informed asap so they can act to invoke Miranda on behalf of the minor child and then obtain an attorney.

If the minor is at or over the State's age of consent, then IMO they are old enough to make an informed decision about their Miranda rights. In such case's IMO it should be up to the minor to invoke his rights and request an attorney.

In any case, I don't think it is a good idea for parent's to be present in the room, although they can observe. I'd prefer in either case that an attorney be present to protect the interests of the minor. Parent's, not understanding the law or the consequences of their own acts/statements may create a greater problem if they are there and able to interject.

In all cases the parents should at least be notified their minor child has been arrested so that they can act appropriately.

“Age of Consent” is the age at which a juvie is old enough to consent to having sex. I don’t think that’s what you mean, do you? What would not being jail bait have to do with understanding one’s rights?
 
“Age of Consent” is the age at which a juvie is old enough to consent to having sex. I don’t think that’s what you mean, do you? What would not being jail bait have to do with understanding one’s rights?

The legal right to consent regarding sexual relations is one of the most important actions in one's life. It incurs all the legal responsibility for the possibility of having a child...since sex is designed for that purpose don't you know. ;)

If a person is deemed legally old enough to make that decision with the presumption they are legally old enough to accept that level of responsibility...then he/she is also old enough to decide for himself/herself whether he/she will or will not interview about a crime.
 
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.


A minor is required to either have a parent/guardian or a legal advocate in the room with them at all times during the investigation.

If no such representation is in the room for the interrogation, all of the information gathered by the questioning officer can be thrown out of court.

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.
 
Last edited:
A minor is required to either have a parent/guardian or a legal advocate in the room with them at all times during the investigation.

If no such representation is in the room for the interrogation, all of the information gathered by the questioning officer can be thrown out of court.

Ha, tell that to Brendan Dassey from the documentary Making a Murderer. Kid is mentally challenged and the cops separated him and got him to admit to a crime he didn't commit. Shouldn't be allowed but many cops still get away with it and get convictions.
 
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?

It really depends on the severity and nature of the crime.
 
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.

I don't think I've ever seen one waive their rights now that I think about it, though it was a requirement to have a state representative on hand at the courthouse for nearly every case concerning a minor. when I was still working in the circuit at least.

Seven years is a pretty decent time to be away from that life.
 
Ha, tell that to Brendan Dassey from the documentary Making a Murderer. Kid is mentally challenged and the cops separated him and got him to admit to a crime he didn't commit. Shouldn't be allowed but many cops still get away with it and get convictions.

Strangely similar to what they did with the West Memphis Three.
 
“Age of Consent” is the age at which a juvie is old enough to consent to having sex. I don’t think that’s what you mean, do you? What would not being jail bait have to do with understanding one’s rights?

Is that really, legally, the only thing that applies to? Sex?
 
The legal right to consent regarding sexual relations is one of the most important actions in one's life. It incurs all the legal responsibility for the possibility of having a child...since sex is designed for that purpose don't you know. ;)

If a person is deemed legally old enough to make that decision with the presumption they are legally old enough to accept that level of responsibility...then he/she is also old enough to decide for himself/herself whether he/she will or will not interview about a crime.

Okay, I really did think you meant the age of majority. My apologies.

We don’t agree. I’m SHOCKED, I tell ya’. haha! ;)

Being old enough to not be jail bait has, IMO, little to do with the capacity to understand one’s legal rights.

And the world just keeps on a’spinnin’. ;)
 
Is that really, legally, the only thing that applies to? Sex?

The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts and is thus the minimum age of a person with whom another person is legally permitted to engage in sexual activity. The distinguishing aspect of the age of consent laws is that the person below the minimum age is regarded as the victim and their sex partner as the offender. The purpose of setting an age of consent is to protect an underage person from sexual advances by mature age persons.

Yes. People often get that mixed up with the age of majority. I thought that was what Captain really meant.

The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as recognized or declared in law. It is the moment when minors cease to be considered children and assume legal control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them. Most countries set the age of majority at 18. The word majority here refers to having greater years and being of full age as opposed to minority, the state of being a minor. The law in a given jurisdiction may not actually use the term "age of majority". The term typically refers to a collection of laws bestowing the status of adulthood. The age of majority does not necessarily correspond to the mental or physical maturity of an individual.

Age of majority should not be confused with the age of sexual consent, marriageable age, school leaving age, drinking age, driving age, voting age, smoking age, gambling age, etc., which each may be independent of and set at a different age from the age of majority.
 
I was careless. I missed the suspect part. My bad. And I’m with you, a person of interest is a suspect. That question isn’t easy to answer, is it? On the one hand.. yet on the other. I guess here’s where I’d land: if it is legally required he be Mirandized, then his parents should be notified and given a reasonable amount of time to show up or give consent. If that doesn’t happen, then I think a public defender should be present. Not appointed. Just temporary.

If you’re not old enough by law to sign a legal contract, why would we ever assume a juvie understands his rights?

Seems like a simple question, but, IMO, it’s really not.

It is my understanding, and I sure could be wrong, that the Miranda warning is not always necessary in preliminary questioning.
That's a good point I hadn't thought of. In many scenarios an advocate of some kind is required to be present. When abused/molested by a parent, for example. An advocate should be required here, as well. At the bare minimum, and only after parents have been given opportunity.
 
Back
Top Bottom