The Limits of “Children Are Different”: How Juvenile Interrogation Procedures Fail to Protect Children with Intellectual Disabilities

The U.S. legal system has long regarded individuals with intellectual disabilities and children as requiring special protections, including in criminal contexts.  However, judicial and statutory consideration of the particular needs of children with intellectual disabilities—who are in some senses doubly vulnerable compared to either population in isolation—has been insufficient in the realm of criminal procedure.  When involved in a criminal investigation, children with intellectual disabilities require tailored protections due to the increased likelihood that they will either falsely confess to a crime they did not commit or confess because of undue coercion.  This population of children is particularly susceptible to pressure from authority figures, likely to err in recalling events, and suggestible.

While many states have recently enacted limited protections for individuals with intellectual disabilities, lawmakers and judges at both the state and federal level have yet to implement criminal legal standards that are directly tailored to the needs of children with intellectual disabilities.  This Note proposes a baseline standard for all juvenile interrogations that accommodates the specific vulnerabilities of children with intellectual disabilities.  A general standard that accounts for those needs circumvents common logistical challenges, such as expecting law enforcement to be able to identify when a child has an intellectual disability and then appropriately depart from typical procedures in juvenile interrogations.

Part I of this Note outlines the development of criminal legal standards for uniquely vulnerable populations, constitutional requirements for interrogations, and the current prevailing approach to interrogations.  Part II examines existing state legislation and policy proposals and discusses their limitations in effectively protecting children with intellectual disabilities in interrogations.  Part III recommends a package of reforms that would reduce false confessions and protect the constitutional rights of children and asserts that these comprehensive reforms are best implemented through state statutes.