Trust and mistrust in law enforcement by formerly incarcerated persons: Effects on Miranda reasoning using a mixed-methods design.

Abstract

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) protects waivers in police custody from potential self-incrimination unless the waiver decision was knowingly and intelligently effectuated. Despite extensive research on Miranda comprehension, very little is known about these crucial waiver decisions. This study explores new ground for formerly incarcerated persons (FIPs) and their capacity for knowing and intelligent waivers. In a Prolific investigation, 182 FIPs were recruited, with most having multiple arrests and subsequent incarcerations. They were tested on the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA), the best validated measure of Miranda abilities for adult detainees. Results of a linear discriminant analysis indicated that the Miranda-proficient reasoning group was predicted by strong Miranda-relevant vocabulary and low scores on the Trust in Law Enforcement (TLE) subscale. Contrastingly, the Miranda-compromised group demonstrated significantly less advanced Miranda vocabulary with concomitantly high TLE scores. Despite criminal backgrounds, TLE overrode other considerations for Miranda waivers. Based on a qualitative analysis, Miranda-compromised FIPs seriously overestimated their own abilities to handle police questioning, whereas Miranda-proficient FIPs appeared more skeptical of any advantages of waiving silence/counsel. In conclusion, this Miranda-compromised group held seemingly more trusting views of arresting officers and saw more benefits to waive their rights than their Miranda-proficient counterparts.