Research.
Where language meets the law.
I explore the relationship between adolescent development, legal understanding, and the language we use to communicate our rights.
EXPLORE THE STUDY ↓Can someone meaningfully exercise a right they do not fully understand?
LAW × PSYCHOLOGY × LANGUAGELost in Translation:
Assessing Miranda Rights Comprehension and Linguistic Vulnerability in Adolescents
How well do teenagers understand the rights meant to protect them during police questioning? This independent study combines a literature review with original survey data from 307 adolescents aged 13–18 to examine understanding of Miranda warnings, perceived confidence, and age-related differences.
Its central concern is the gap between being told one's rights and being able to understand and use them.
Methods.
A closer look at what adolescents know—and what they think they know.
Literature review
Examined research on language impairment among justice-involved youth, Miranda comprehension, false confessions, and juror perceptions.
Original survey
A 17-item anonymous online survey of 307 participants ages 13–18, conducted through Centiment on December 29–30, 2025.
Comprehension assessment
Six multiple-choice questions tested core Miranda rights; additional items assessed familiarity, confidence, and legal-learning preferences.
Statistical analyses were assisted by Claude, as disclosed in the manuscript. Interpretations and conclusions were drawn by the author.
What the data revealed.
Three findings stand out from the six-question Miranda comprehension assessment.
Being warned does not guarantee understanding.
175 participants (57%) answered fewer than six of the six rights questions correctly. Only 132 (43%) achieved a perfect score.
Understanding increases with age.
Age was positively associated with comprehension (Spearman r = 0.187, p = .001). Thirteen-year-olds averaged 4.12 correct answers; sixteen-year-olds averaged 5.29.
Feeling confident is not the same as knowing.
Self-reported confidence did not correlate significantly with actual comprehension (r = 0.013, p = .822), raising concerns about relying on a teenager's assertion that they understand their rights.
Figures from the research project
Beyond the warning.
Legal protection depends on meaningful comprehension—not simply recitation.
The findings support the case for more developmentally appropriate legal explanations, objective comprehension checks, and legal-rights education accessible to younger adolescents.
A necessary distinction: the survey measured knowledge of Miranda rights, not participants' clinical language abilities or behavior during actual interrogations. The paper's discussion of linguistic vulnerability and false confessions also draws on prior published research; those outcomes were not directly tested in the survey.
Read the research.
Lost in Translation: Assessing Miranda Rights Comprehension and Linguistic Vulnerability in Adolescents
FULL MANUSCRIPT / PDF17 pages ↗OPEN THE COMPLETE RESEARCH PAPERDr. Aliza Spruch-Feiner
Clinical Psychologist / Research Mentor
This independent research project was conducted under Dr. Spruch-Feiner's guidance, with support from the Horizon Academic Research Program in connecting the author with a mentor.
MANUSCRIPT STATUSIndependent research manuscript. No publication or peer-review status is claimed here.
The Right to Understand.
A question explored through research—and through film.
Alongside my research, I have been developing a documentary exploring how language, age, and power shape young people's experiences with legal rights and juvenile interrogation.
The project approaches these questions through a visual and narrative lens, connecting legal concepts with the human experiences behind them.
Visual research and production material
Making the Question Public.
A discussion-based workshop on juvenile interrogation, comprehension, and justice.
In November 2025, I developed an 11-slide workshop presentation for the New Jersey Student Equity Conference, titled “Why Do Miranda Rights Fail to Protect Young People?” The presentation used real juvenile interrogation cases to invite conversation about language, pressure, and meaningful legal understanding.
The workshop preceded my December 2025 survey of 307 adolescents. It represents an earlier, public-facing exploration of the same questions—not a presentation of the later survey results.
Why Do Miranda Rights Fail to Protect Young People?
Understanding under pressure.
Audience members reflect on a time they agreed to something before fully understanding it.
SLIDE 03When a confession is not the whole story.
Central Park Five and Brendan Dassey provide case studies for discussing interrogation and vulnerability.
SLIDES 04–05What should change?
Participants consider plain-language warnings, access to counsel, and interrogation safeguards.
SLIDES 07–08The presentation is documentation of a discussion workshop, not the December 2025 survey study. Numerical claims and state-law summaries in the original slides should be independently source-checked before reuse as research findings.