FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W824171444> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W824171444 startingPage "145" @default.
• W824171444 abstract "I. Introduction 145II. J.D.B, v. North Carolina 149III. United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence has Long Recognized a Heightened Risk of Coercion and False Confessions of Juveniles During Custodial Interrogations 152IV. The Totality of Circumstances in Police-Conducted School Interrogations Leads the Reasonable Child to Believe He Must Respond and Make Potentially False Statements 155V. The States' Juvenile Miranda Statutes and Case Precedent Provide the Appropriate Forum for Implementation of the Presumptive In-Custody Approach 161A. The Reasonable School-Aged Child Experiences Sufficient Restriction of Freedom to Support a Presumptive In-Custody Approach 164B. Amending the States' Juvenile Miranda Statutes to Include an In-Custody Presumption During Police-Conducted School Interrogations Will Alleviate the Problem of CoercedConfessions 166VI. What are the States Doing? 168A. Texas 168B. Other States 170VII. Conclusion 171I. IntroductionA child and his parent anticipate an array of experiences that the child might encounter on any given school day. Some experiences are beyond their reasonable expectation. For instance, being subjected to police questioning incident to an active police investigation is not usually within the scope of educational experiences that either the parent or the child would anticipate. Nevertheless, police questioning in the schoolhouse is becoming more common as the incidents of crimes committed by children increase.1 Because police investigations increasingly involve interrogation of child suspects in schools, consideration for their constitutional rights is crucial. While the constitutional protections afforded by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizonar2 have provided protection for adults against self-incrimination, the custodial analysis has not always afforded the same to child suspects.3 Specifically, the reasonable person's belief that he or she is free to leave police-initiated interrogations is not qualitatively the same for a child suspect.4 The special circumstances presented by the school setting further complicate the determination of what a reasonable child suspect believes when confronted with police questioning.5 Children will not likely assess the legal consequences of making statements to the police.6Additionally, the risk of self-incrimination and the evolution of legal jurisprudence to false confessions foundationally explain how even children who commit crimes are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions.7 State statutes generally provide limits8 when determining a child's ability to comprehend his or her constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as the child's ability to knowingly waive them.9 Age limits are especially important when children operate under the false perception that they are not under the authority of the police, as in school interrogation situations.10 The United States Supreme Court addressed application of the Miranda custody analysis in its recent ruling, J.D.B, v. North Carolina,11 where the Court determined that age may indeed be relevant when affording children Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination during police-conducted school interrogation.12 Certainly, is when determining whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to impose the death penalty on juveniles or to impose life without parole sentencing13 based on the legally recognized theory of diminished culpability.14 The Court's age-is-relevant ruling, however, does not sufficiently protect children during in-school interrogations where they might operate under the false perception that their statements and actions are not made under the authority of the police.15 The states should therefore adopt a presumptive in-custody determination that eliminates the two-step totality of circumstances and reasonable child test. …" @default.
• W824171444 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W824171444 creator A5048494406 @default.
• W824171444 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W824171444 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W824171444 title "A Presumptive In-Custody Analysis to Police-Conducted School Interrogations" @default.
• W824171444 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W824171444 type Work @default.
• W824171444 sameAs 824171444 @default.
• W824171444 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W824171444 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W824171444 hasAuthorship W824171444A5048494406 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C140334061 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C2776240099 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C2777188754 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C2777249218 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C2779918413 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C2780138299 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C2780253743 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C61547137 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C69775031 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W824171444 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C138885662 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C140334061 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C15744967 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C17319257 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C17744445 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C199539241 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C2776240099 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C2777188754 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C2777249218 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C2778272461 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C2779918413 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C2780138299 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C2780253743 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C41895202 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C61547137 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C69775031 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C71043370 @default.
• W824171444 hasConceptScore W824171444C73484699 @default.
• W824171444 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W824171444 hasLocation W8241714441 @default.
• W824171444 hasOpenAccess W824171444 @default.
• W824171444 hasPrimaryLocation W8241714441 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W102348164 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2143426498 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W216457158 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W21705533 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2291111153 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2501042642 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2503309788 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2563938818 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2604503561 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W270810587 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2730978811 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2767129706 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W2986864876 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W3123166399 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W3125923902 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W3176506400 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W3181414370 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W3195479746 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W749846215 @default.
• W824171444 hasRelatedWork W867348555 @default.
• W824171444 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W824171444 isParatext "false" @default.
• W824171444 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W824171444 magId "824171444" @default.
• W824171444 workType "article" @default.