Emphasizing Miranda's Importance Promotes Procedurally Just Decisions

Abstract

Miranda waiver decisions must be voluntarily rendered. We conducted the first known analysis comparing the voluntariness of waiver decisions made in response to a novel noncoercive Miranda administration tactic relative to a customary coercive tactic. Specifically, we compared perceptions of procedural justice and willingness to cooperate that each tactic elicited. In an online paradigm, mock suspects were accused of a hit-and-run. Across three experiments, mediation models showed that the noncoercive tactic was more likely to produce voluntary waivers by heightening perceptions of procedural justice and willingness to cooperate. We also explored the moderating effects of guilt status and race/ethnicity on this mediated effect, but neither analysis reached significance. Findings suggest that customary coercive administration tactics may violate Miranda's voluntariness requirement. Limitations are discussed.