Juvenile Interrogation - Admissibility of a Juvenile Confession - Essay Example

Juvenile Interrogation - Admissibility of a Juvenile ConfessionUndeniably, juvenile confession and admissibility to date continues to pose numerous and varied challenges to investigators while trying to convince the court regarding the evidence they have at hand (Sherman, 2011). This is regardless of the already set guidelines by the judicial system meant to ascertain exactly when confessions ought to be acceptable. Since, numerous law experts cite child’s mental maturity plays a key role in this process, which varies from one person to another.

Therefore, a child due to certain unwarranted issues may give false confessions or exercise one’s waive rights inappropriately. Hence, prompt the police investigators holding this false confession as an absolute truth and valid meant for presentation in the court. However, the court has set guidelines, which all the involved parties during juvenile’s interrogation ought to observe. Similar to other offenders, juvenile once they break the law ought to undergo the same procedure but treated differently while in custody.

This is especially during interrogation where there ought to be an attorney or a parent (Sherman, 2011). Since, this is the vital process whereby due to the child’s age and state of mind, certain parties may end up doubting the information’s validity presented in court as an evidence or confession. Therefore, the court cites that the only admissible confession is from a juvenile who is above 14 years and not below that age (Maynard & Sumner, LLC, 2012). Since, the court presumes one at that age he or she can make informed decisions while aided by either an attorney or a parent.

This is to ensure the police investigators do not result to other means meant to compel the child against his or her wish into confessing (Sherman, 2011). However, the wish to have either a parent or an adult assistance always depends on the child whereby the involved parties ought to respect the offender’s waiver rights (Sherman, 2011). If this is the case, then confessions via the appropriate procedure are admissible in court. Nevertheless, police investigators ought to attest beyond doubt that the confession was made in the absence of coercion, which is via using visual aids like videos (Sherman, 2011).

In addition, despite the police investigators employing the right procedure meant to attain the child’s confession, still face numerous challenges. For instance, the child may end up giving false confessions (Leo & Liu, n.d). This is due to either the parent or an attorney’s insistence advising the juvenile to tell the “truth” whereby their inclination is on one side, which is admitting the offense (Sherman, 2011). Hence, becoming an insurmountable challenge to the police investigators suppose the child decides otherwise and say he or she confessed because the involved parties told him to tell the “truth” (Sherman, 2011).

This is especially when the child is innocent and has confessed guilty because the case had overwhelmed him or her. According to Sherman, numerous instances where juvenile offenders admit responsibility of the cases confronting them, it is due to their parents’ encouragement towards the same (Redlich & Goodman, n.d). This especially during the interrogation process where the juvenile according to the law inquires permission meant to seek advice from an adult person who in this case may be an attorney or the parent (Sherman, 2011).

Hence, pose a challenge to the police investigators who may take coerced confession only for the child to change later. Therefore, this prompts the court to assume the confession was either due to intimidation or inducement besides other means, which the adults (both the police and parent) used to compel the child to admit offense (Sherman, 2011). Besides, some law experts strongly argue that the minds of juvenile are yet fully developed to the extent of making informed decisions. Hence, they end up waiving the right of an attorney with little knowledge regarding the impact the decision they take would have on their lives.

This is also a challenge to the police investigators suppose lawyers claim the child despite having attained the right age is not fit to make such decisions based on scientific studies (Sherman, 2011). Since, he or she is immature.References (2012). Juvenile Crimes: Admissibility of a Juvenile Confession. Maynard & Sumner, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.njlawattorney.com/blog/2012/10/juvenile-crimes- admissibility-of-a-juvenile-confession.shtml(2013). CHC 881.1 - Admissibility of a child's confession in juvenile court. Laws.com.

Retrieved from http://statutes.laws.com/louisiana/chc/chc881.1Leo, R., & Liu, B. (n.d). What Do Potential Jurors Know About Police Interrogation Techniques and False Confessions?. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 27(3), 381-399.Redlich, A., & Goodman, G. (n.d). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility. Law And Human Behavior, 27(2), 141-156.Sherman, F. T. (2011). Juvenile justice: Advancing research, policy, and practice. New Jersey. Wiley.