Involuntary: How a Lack of Analysis of Age Under the Fifth Amendment Highlights the Intersectionality of Age and Race

Abstract: In the wake of Miller v. Alabama and its progeny, there has been a wider acceptance that juvenile’s need more protections in our judicial system. This is a result of a growing body of research stating that young people’s brains do not fully develop until the age of twenty-five. States across the country are trying to implement this science to protect juvenile rights, especially when it comes to sentencing. However, it has yet to be incorporated in other respects, such as juveniles relinquishing their Fifth Amendment rights. Little attention has been paid to whether a juvenile’s statement in police custody was given voluntarily under the Fifth Amendment. Looking at six different jurisdictions’ analysis of juveniles relinquishing their Fifth Amendment rights (and the voluntariness of their statements), any protections that have been added vary in their effectiveness. Further examination of states with a legislative approach and the cases that result from those jurisdictions indicate courts have less meaningful consideration of youth. Such lack of consideration has left juveniles in these jurisdictions more susceptible to adultification as compared to jurisdictions that consider youth within the body of law, such as within a Miller analysis or within the totality of the circumstances analysis. This Comment proposes that states like Washington that have delegated this analysis to the legislature should incorporate a Miller analysis in court enforcement to prevent further adultification of young people by meaningfully grappling with the characteristics of youth.

Other Articles from WLR Online