environment where there is flexibility where one of the parents wants to stay home. if you go back to the days where there were more people -- one of the parents staying at home, obviously there's a lot of reasons for that. as a one of the reasons we've seen that dynamic changes the increase in federal taxation, increasing taxation on the family. if you go back to 1952, the average tax that the average american pay to the federal government was 2% in now is a social security tax. now the social security tax on medicare taxes over 15%. on top of that other taxes and income taxes. again, your average family don't play a lot as far as a percentage of income, but it's still another 10% on that.

looking at 26% from a 27% is that the average american family, mom, dad, two kids pays her taxes. well, let's look then at what the second order of the family generally brings in. and again, haven't looked at these numbers in a few years, but what it was was that the average earner come the second earner of the family brings in 25% of what the first earner brings then, right? well, guess what. just do the math. what is that person doing? they are making up the difference of what the government makes now. so are no better shape. you have someone working outside the home to basically pay the federal government for what is now taken away from the american family. so we can make the case. there are lots of reasons other than financial do people go out and want to work. fine, that's their decision and i came from a family where my mom and dad both work. in fact, my mom made more than my dad.

so i don't have anything inherently wrong with people who want to do that. but i will tell you about a family don't want to do that, but feel like they are forced to do that simply to make ends meet. they say why do i feel -- why can't we be like we were when i was growing up as a kid? and one of the reasons is because attacks the federal government takes on. >> about the way forward in afghanistan. >> i give the president credit for making a commitment to follow through with the generals requesting, but he made a fatal error in my opinion by telling the enemy when to leave for that work going to leave before we have achieved success. you have to remember -- i'm trying to remember the name of the movie i saw were the helicopters are flying away.

[inaudible] what? now, that small yet. i'm talking about afghanistan. with the mujahedin are standing there and the helicopters are flying away and the united states basically abandons afghanistan to -- to a very difficult feat. the afghanistan of experienced americans not staying there and be merry to trust them. and here we are in a situation and put it back at that when the president says we have the theme. look, i don't think anyone questions purely political reasons. ..

taliban and having the jeffersonian democracy in afghanistan. it means having control over the state, the taliban being a unmanageable threat by the government that is in place, and the government in place is not necessarily the government there right now. one of the problem areas is investing we too much on hamid karzai and mark on the traditional way that afghanistan has been able to govern itself in the past. so i think we need to look at

the kind of governing structure that we need in afghanistan and the people in afghanistan want. the one thing i would tell of the people we are not coming to walkout. >> that could take several more years. >> there is a threat to this country with a reconstitute the taliban in afghanistan. we saw that in vivid terms on 9/11. we have an obligation to leave that country in a place where it cannot be reconstituted, and that is the objective and afghanistan. >> thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. >> thank you.

continually media fuel familiarity with miranda warnings resulted in an adequate understanding of miranda. held by the american psychological association, his lecture is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is ron, and it's my

pleasure to introduce the recipient of the 2011 award for distinguished contributions to research and public policy, richard rodgers. dick come as he's known to his friends and colleagues, has a distinguished record of contributions to vernon six ecology, but it's probably worth noting that he started out in quite a different path. as his first intended career would have been as an english teacher. somewhere go along the way, and fortunately for us, he became enamored with psychology, and he eventually found his way into graduate school at the utah state university. and there, he worked with professor right where he conducted his dissertation research on self disclosure. following his ph.d., dick initially pursued the clinical path of the clinical psychologists first at the maximum security center, the

mental health center in illinois, followed by a position at the department of psychiatry at the rush medical school where he is one of the small group who formed training and research facility known to many of you as of the cizik race and her. now this was a very productive period for dick as he conducted the research that led to the publication of the rogers criminal responsibility assessment scale. and also, along with his colleague, james kavanagh, created the journal behavioral sciences and law. it is my good fortune that in 1984 he came to canada to come to toronto, which is where i first met him. he joined their the clerk institute of psychiatry at the university of toronto, and he began their to pursue his decade-long interest and malingering response style. in 1919 and 98, the clinical malling during and deception was

published this very influential book was recognized by the american psychiatric association , which honored him with the guttmacher award. he also developed the structured interview of reported symptoms during this period. so it was a good productive period in canada. but in 1991, she decided to leave and return to the united states to take up the faculty position in the department of psychology at the university of north texas. and there he helped build an unexceptional clinical psychology doctoral program and he has remained there where he now is recently named the region's professor, and i want to say that i know many of dick's students. he's been an exceptional mentor to his students. and in fact, it's worth noting three of his students were recognized by national awards for their early career contributions to research in the

area. dick of course himself as well known for his many contributions to the skills and putting the assessment of malingering, the insanity defense, and competency to stand trial. the work that he's done and all those areas was recognized by another report that he received from apa years ago for distinguished contributions to applied research. in the past six or seven years, dick focused his issue on miranda rights and he's published numeral numerous articles on the work. the most recent in fact ought to publish in the journal why did it, psychology and public law, which you will find in the may issue of the journal. there's three copies of that may wish you available actually in the notebook area. he expects to publish a book that i think will do a nice summary of the years of research

on this. the book will be called the standardized assessment of the miranda abilities and it's expected to come out next year. today he is going to focus his talk on that research and so i am honored to introduce to you richard rodgers. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming. i really, truly appreciate this. it's so nice to see both friends and colleagues and students, i very much appreciate that. i need to -- see if that doesn't work. all right, here we go. i'd like to begin on a bit of a follow-up note, and that is that one of my close colleagues in terms of miranda research, dan truman, as many of you know, passed away several months ago. and he was a close collaborator, both with myself and others, was

co principal investigator on the my nsf grants. probably one of the best collaborators on phil law and mental health. i got the privilege of working with him on two separate books. but just i think a power in this area. there's a picture of him. so it is to him that i would like to attribute this talk. and i increasingly teach in society and have to but knowledge that in receiving grants in the national science foundation that is in fact if you like what i say there greatly appreciative and if not, i'm asked to say any opinions, filings or conclusions or recommendations expressed of the material of the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of the national science foundation. i recognize that today is a bit of a divided audience. recognized clearly some

distinguished researchers in terms of miranda in that particular area, and there are perhaps more psychologists and interested professions who are just interested in the topic or just came here for moral support for me. so i will try to take both of those populations, both of those groups and to mind as i am making this presentation. i would like to focus more selectively given the time constraints that we have on some of the important issues, challenges and the dilemmas faced in the of valuations. i would also like to pay attention on a few occasions to whom i consider some unsettling issues, those are problems or issues that i think we need to grapple and struggle with in my hope here is to motivate more research and public debate on these important topics. most of you have seen a picture

of ernesto miranda. i highlighted the o because he was required to use this in his name in the 1960's. for sexual assault they described him as a hispanic in the early twenties with observable tattoos. several days later, she was unable to recognize him in a foreperson lineup. let's see how well did you guys do. i think it becomes somewhat clearer that in fact as my wife pointed out it's very interesting that the only person with a short sleeve shirt happens to be, i don't know -- you notice the tattoo on the side so getting i believe every benefit of the doubt expos

tattoo and glasses he seems somewhat distinguishable to me but perhaps i'm biased and we are fortunate in fact this case went on and so we could have the landmark decision that occurred. in terms of after the lineup, the interrogation process, this was then asked how did i do? that's never a good comment by the way. if you were ever in a lineup asking did i pass or not is probably not a successful way of approaching this in which case it is completely entitled, so you flunked and clearly that's -- the miranda version of the promised me help if i could just talk to them briefly about the case. for those who haven't seen, this is the whole confession. i find it interesting that perhaps one of the most landmark cases that we have is essentially included on one

page, in which case he admitted to two of the sexual assaults in this brief account. he also by the way found a way saying he gave up his rights with a full legal understanding of what the rights work, although they were not explained just a moment or two on the decision itself as you can see it was a closely held decision, 5-for decision. the chief justice warren is the person for the majority opinion. no one can ever criticized the supreme court for being brief in their comments. i will quickly go through this but then i have the essentials concept from the next slide. it must be prior to any questioning that is the right to remain silent and that anything that he says can be used against him in the court of law. you can hear these words, can't you know, in the terms of law and order that to the presence

of an attorney in that if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. the opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation so really for that there are five ways of compliance. the right to silence which we will come back to leader is really a constitutional protection against self-incrimination is what is went to the command by the silence of the perils of leaving that the silence and the right to counsel, supervision of free legal services to the indigent suspect some in the ongoing protections of the miranda rights. a commentary on the major points here and doesn't require that you gave the miranda. they said as you need to get the miranda warning or any other fully effective means and the

legislatures to consider other options. one option flexible in canada i believe so we have that as a possibility. the supreme court also was clear to a firm you needed the right to silence because otherwise silence in the face of an accusation is itself damming and perhaps of the greatest interest to us here was a later decision of the supreme court in 1981 and which they said there is no special words that are needed, no special words that are needed in giving the miranda and the typical researcher that concluded that by saying there are no incantations required to the scriptures in trying to

figure out how to use that phrase and i publish some of my research. i think it could be helpful. the unintended consequence of this is that there is no word for the necessary than all words are possible and you will see that in just a moment. >> i think miranda can be looked at from five fairly distinct areas which obviously overlap each other. the most basic is vocabulary. as you can't use the word indigent with the word indicted, clearly this shows a problem in terms of understanding. the second is comprehension. this is simply tested looking at those a person have the ability to recall? the retention by the way becomes more important with recent decisions though a person could in fact be given the warning hours and potentially days

before and can then be considered at the time which they make incriminating statements. one shall focus more today on the higher levels including misconceptions, the idea that silence can be incriminating to reasoning. can a person deduce the best actions for them he based on with their goals are. things will get more interesting here. we will spend a few minutes on the lower levels of the miranda. we don't turn to kind of the primary focus of today's talk, which is looking at in parents in terms of misconceptions, impaired reasonings and ignorance. miranda vocabulary has been very well researched but with limited coverage. some of the work is done by tom chris wallen terms of comprehension of the the

capillary. the awful lot of that by gold steel and formed the vocabulary scale. so it is a fundamental issue here if you don't know the words it's pretty difficult to grasp the meaning of them. if you don't know the words as they apply to miranda or legal situations it is pretty difficult. so, the common mistake is the word determining. we've run into almost no criminal defendants that don't know the word determining. they think of it just killing as ending or completing a task is in time yearly different. so let me if you build a foundation for miranda. when it comes to the miranda comprehension and when i talk about the public view informal observations in fact talking and

giving workshops to a variety of different audiences about how people oftentimes do view issues i think and remember referenced a few minutes ago people believe i've been exposed to that so many thousands of times everybody knows the rights. devotee knows it because they know that it's the same thing. they know it's the same thing because when they hear it it sounds like is the same thing. the trouble is it isn't. the first issue is the myth of uniformity that in fact is where every -- the warning will be just about the same. indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. we looked at and did large national surveys of miranda warning is covering about one third of the county's in the united states and found 888

unique warnings. you know that is not the answer, don't you, because in the other two-thirds i'm confident they didn't let us down. i'm confident there are hundreds we did not discover in terms of juvenile warnings these are warnings written specifically for juvenile offenders across the surveys we have collected 371 uniques warnings. if you're like many people, you're probably thinking to yourself this has much to do about nothing to read the different warnings must be a word here and a free is there. it can't be that different. he's making this out for more than it is. i think one benchmark is to look at the world bank. if you look at the word of links, the general morning of those for any age the warning itself varies in half length in the 21 words to 231.

the total material, this is a total material presented for the waiver and its double that, isn't it? to 547. now juvenile warnings are actually written launder on purpose typically 75 to 100 words -- than those and the reason for that is we try to explain things to them in more detail. we make them more complex so that it is not surprising that the warnings themselves range from 23 to 26 and the total material from 58 to 1,140. i thought that deserved to be highlighted. somehow that seems like a contract, doesn't it? three to four pages of solid material this person is supposed to understand. the public view because we tend to think of these is being simple and straightforward the

public review is easy to read, so simple they are easy also to read. the standard benchmark for looking at this is the reading estimates which resides interestingly the level for the 100% comprehension but forget least 75% comprehension and getting together a grasp if you think about, not getting it at all might not be a good thing. if we look at that for that benchmark the general morning's range from grade to to close to college requiring further advanced education the juvenile warnings are a slightly higher level remember we wanted to give them more details and explanation requiring between the 2.2. it is a bit of an unsettling

problem. first of all when you look at the juvenile offenders this data on the thousands of offenders that typically reads and it's a 16 year old on average less of their younger than that between 5.8 to six, these are just averages, excuse me, medians over a period of about five years we cannot in fact look at the level of graves completed and many times this is a social thing more than anything else and consider that to have any relationship to in fact what is their reading level. that happens frequently in some of the legal circles. they speak about four years below their grade level. if you are looking at just focusing on one side of the population in terms of magnitude, the best -- the most recent complete data that we have is from 2009, data from

2010. about 91,000 teams are arrested in 2009, 312,000, 13 and 14-year-olds. these are underestimates because not all jurisdictions report and some crimes are not included in that list. if you look at it before i showed you the average is the fact is over half are reading at eighth grade or above. 5% of them require some college preparation. you receive a warning that requires some college education. this is unsettling. whenever your beliefs about should people have legal protection or constitutional safeguards, well, the fairness about it is if you're giving them a warning it's something they can understand or let's not do this then. so roughly speaking perhaps 200,000 receive a warning which

is far beyond their grade level and far beyond their reading level. okay, you made a big deal out of that, right? what about the financial? come on peery devotee can understand the things being presented. sure i gave you the cumulative percentage so almost all of the mur and the material is 75. 86%, 125 or more. a good benchmark is the two-thirds. two-thirds of them are written at 145 words or more the person when given the advice is supposed to take in and understand. the average morning to release 213 words. very conservative estimate is 26. how does that compare to what we

would expect? what i did it some of you are familiar with the memory scale we will see immediately from this comes from what i looked at is what is the very best you can expect from the well-educated adults? those are the adults considered to have superior, not above average but superior memory devotees. when given the concept -- when given comprehension recall of 75 words what 25 concept in fact that grizzlies 72% of them correct. this is a rather unsettling issue of the brightest and the best of the adults achieve even a 75% comprehension there are some things here that need to be fixed. >> what about spanish? there are hundreds of thousands of spanish detainees who've been

arrested annually, what about that? we looked at 121 jurisdictions and okay i'm just giving you a very quick summary. in terms of the usage among these about 12% and just an example instead of saying can you afford an attorney, are too economically permitted a lawyer it would be awkward for many of us. i think that some things are troubling because the fact is in a roughly 3% of the case is part of the miranda components were missing. when i say they were missing i want to be clear about this. these are jurisdictions we oppose the inclusion of the spanish who use comparisons. you might say gee that's difficult to do with those of us who do this research know you just take it and flipped it over. it's pretty straightforward in terms of testing. when it was on the english it would be missing in some cases particularly the fifth prong on the spanish.

it cries out in terms of fairness and equal protection. and although rare in the transition, sometimes, costs are also tragic. i won't try to pronounce the spanish to read the will give you a very light moment if i tried that. but in fact it's the spanish translation you have the right to remain whitewashed. something about that doesn't seem like it captures the constitutional protections that we all desire. now my focus is going to shift over to the kind of tire components of the cognitive thinking in terms of misconceptions and based on a false premise and impaired miranda reasoning. but first just a moment in terms of the historical perspective. i think that tom is best known for his work in terms of the marion the reasoning but he also did some seminal research

included in his 1981 monograph which really examined i think for the first time in his systematic way some of the important misconceptions. i knew tom wouldn't be here today. he's in australia giving some plenary talks so i thought it was to put a picture of him or thought of as a rather nice picture of tom. he lived with juvenile offenders and has data on adults but most of his work is on juvenile offenders in terms of the right to silence. 60% of them believed you can exercise their right to silence but he will be punished if you do it, punished if you go against adults. the issue of the evoke a devotee. i am a parent and we know of at in the authority or bigger and stronger or perhaps rowley more skilled than your kids and the fact is you've revoke them. i change my mind i take that

back. it's not surprising that in fact a number of juvenile offenders believe yes you can give me that right to silence but taken out whenever you want to in particular with the judge that doesn't make it the right if you don't take it back. it also address the issue of the right to counsel why is it the council wants information? is it because they want to help me or is this information that they will begin to share with others? the slide is busy but 28% believe that that information could then be used subsequently against them so you have to ask the question why would i want counsel of the are doing to become a weapon that will lead to my being found guilty and sentenced?

finally i actually discovered this for the first time in the 1981 book the waiver expectancy who looked at people's reasoning for why they would make the decisions that they would make. it's interesting involved or the police don't know who he is the basis the keys on a several folks involved. only 26 have the reason that this information would be incriminating and could lead to their conviction. the others have less articulated reasons. and then just as a final point from a minor charge to hear felony murder 38% considered a good reason to do that is you can get your legal expertise in the defense counsel. 24% still believed i'm going to

get punished somehow there will be a negative effect on the disposition the judge or the court will deal with me in a harsh way. in the early seminal research which i think is something we have lost attention to but is still essential issues today. i had a picture of, so i thought i should put a picture of me and gave an interview to the miranda -- i see people recognize immediately that that is myself, to a brazilian law magazine and they were gracious to repay me by publishing both the interview as well as this rendition of myself. in all of the work that i talk about should not go unnoticed or unappreciated on individuals who have worked very hard on this particularly my doctorate students but also a number of

colleagues around the country and using legal experts from harvard and from berkeley, dan schuman was involved in the number of legal experts. so what i'm about to tell you about miranda is in fact not based on my own core knowledge or perhaps miss knowledge of legal issues. looking at what are the common misconceptions primarily intended for detainee's found a number of people have basic misbeliefs for those it appears to be reasonably reliable. we want to look at miranda misconceptions' really taking to an account of reality and what i've labeled here reality was

129 detainees awaiting trial, fiction might consider the best case scenario some call this the upper bound. this is as good as it gets and that revises an interesting comparison. the students to reasonably intelligent, more than reasonably intelligent and under at the time. the right to silence, this is a protection or just a chart with? i can eat my broccoli or not eat my broccoli. is it something more than that? isn't getting it wrong the defendants and college students both were in the 30% range. this practice it perfect? 20% of lawn at least i think it was 25. the average it didn't seem like they got any better with practice once i give it up is it gone for good? again you will see them look at how year but we are looking at

the kind of skills in the 30% range in terms of getting the long believing once it is, it's gone. if i don't find the waiver this works in some places if i don't sign the contract can they hold me liable? it is only about half of the defendants excuse me. if i ask something to be off the record that is where over half of the defendants get their own anything you can say and will be used. i think it is pretty clear in terms of most wordings of that warning anything that you say, anything, and it doesn't matter what you think about that. one supreme court decision held that your actions can be held against you as well as your action. knotting what can be seen as an affirmative response some say

you have the right to counsel available so someone, developed at it again, about one-third of individuals believe they can keep interrogating me until help arrives and in some jurisdictions what's the conservative and say for days the could actually continue to interrogate you if you believe that before in fact so the idea if you are at the council and the stock into the beating you, so this believe you can see can easily lead you to the wrong conclusion based on what your needs are. it does and a indigent mean? hulett shows for the college education may be it has had some lapses. we are doing something right. half of the defendant's fault that was the case and if you are

not fully invited you can get legal counsel. 17%, think that's a little bit embarrassing. but 17% of college students fell into that group. how about withdraw your weaver. withdraw your waiver. this is something not labeled a waiver. so the weaver takes some out of the story. the waiver is i.e. agreed to that. did you know that at that time you were waving me right? you say yes to that statement. that was a waiver. if you don't know there was a waiver then how can you withdraw something you don't know what you did in the first place? i think it raises a conundrum. how about false promises of? the police have to tell you the truth? about lying to you about

eyewitness? no is in the case that's exactly what happened. the police give the version and lied about this. in terms of getting it wrong, again, we have substantial percentages. can they make up the extra charges and fictitious charges against you so you can say i'm going to cut my losses. they are only getting me on this one armed robbery there were six of them but it looks like i can just go for one. that seems like a great deal until it goes to the other and it's not even a robbery that necessarily took place. adding it all up, how many people? those of you in the room i imagine most of your college graduates. it's to the college students one out of 20 aced the test. not so good i don't think for your pre-trial defense. in terms of the percentage of these who in fact failed only one or two of the miranda some

might consider that much actually again the college students did better at that you know them not to beat this into the ground but with a complete failure who feel the freezing copies of it? 10% of the defendants and 4% in the college students. let's move on now to the miranda met. maybe it is not because they are intelligent is why people have such great difficulties in terms of miranda misconceptions. not true. those numbers are tiny and it doesn't matter how you divide that. at the level 100i just hope these are a convenient number to provide you with. well maybe it is a lack of education. i mean, the coyote 1967 supreme court case said we should take into account the present devotee and things of that nature. in our look at this i do not provide you with data, not the case.

but, what about the miranda morning? because it doesn't really matter how many misconceptions you have is the miranda warnings themselves are able to get you out of the problems, right? so that you are now relieved of your misconceptions, like probably should stop there, you've read this. yes, they've improved. they went from 17 to 72, not significantly different as you might suspect so improvements in terms of silence, legal services and general misconceptions. they didn't do so well in terms of evidence against your attorney and after hearing the warning they actually had further misconceptions about the police deceptions. there were more fateful having heard the warnings than before. not sure that is what you are trying to achieve. maybe psychological and paramount is the cost and for the sake of simplicity i just

put up one briefly because this is formed in a variety for fresh ways. it has nothing to do with it except in their relatively small number of individuals so you can say in a very small group of individuals this is significant in the great realm of things this is not explaining what is going on. fattah critical issue, a critical issue was when the defendant says i understand. what does that mean? the united states -- i'm sorry, the sixth circuit case in 1996 they said the most clearly affirmative response to the inquiry do you understand can be construed as strong evidence of that year it miranda understanding and we will tackle this in a slightly different way in a couple of slides under the issue of the matter of ignorance

but i think what it does is it overlook say huge area particularly among mentally challenged defendant's to read it overlooks acquiescence of people who have learned i don't know what is going on i just nod and say yes the world will take care of me. overlooks that component completely you know i had to get to the ignorance. the knowledge is what people have done most of the research on. do you know what you think you know? most of them of the population's research suggests people are not as accurate as they think they are, but ignorance, and i found only a handful of psychological studies looking at this particular concept do you know what you don't know? that is different than knowing what you do. some things you have to be certain and other things less

certain but how about the things you don't know? if you know that you don't know them. some of you are pondering this will need an alcoholic beverage but i think that really is a critical issue looking at that and again you get back to the mantra i heard it a thousand times in the confusion between the familiarity and accuracy. well i have some data on the ignorance. these are the people who either are very knowledgeable about this or not so knowledgeable and this is do they make in the areas at all in terms of those groups because i do have one slide that shows the average. well, it seems like the fact is in terms of making the errors on evidence and continuing rights those i've conveniently highlighted them in bold or yellow you see there is a modest difference.

for the legal services the trends in the opposite direction. but i think far more important than that is the notice of whether you think you do or not 60% is a threshold to read in other words, a large majority of people are getting each part of this component from the where they say the understand or they don't understand. so, let's look at the conclusions about the ignorance. i think some good news is, i guess it is good news, about 10% difference when you say that you know verses you don't know, but the bad news is that the better ignorance is alive and well and in fact most defendants don't know what they don't know and over half of the cases and in this case we are following the implications from the cases where the guy says i understand, and the courts automatically accept that as being accurate. a little more comparison i

thought would be of some interest to you. we looked at what makes the difference between try to get those people without miranda in terms of miranda concept send defendant's flashes substantial numbers and as you can say they were not. so this is looking at a large number of these tenet to 25 versus the remaining groups which is still a substantial number. i will give you the three key issues here which would be in terms of the verbal intelligence we wrote that down really by impaired or 85 traverses average which would be 90 or above for it is a discounting to refer the person who weighs very heavily on the immediate consequences over the long term results so for a coffee or a smoke the person is giving them could been

incriminating statements that might put them in prison. it's very troubling among the populations. many of these guys are very impulsive, you can see how impact that might happen. and did they ever stop to consider what the alternatives were. not sure, i know that is a little bit small for you in the backend this is not a test of your security but verbal intelligence you will notice really carries the data, doesn't it? if you have significant problems of the verbal abilities the likelihood that will fall into this substantial in terms of substantial levels of miranda misconceptions is really substantially higher so if you do not engage in the discounting than you to consider alternatives it is only 5% falling into that group. some of you are clever about this and will know is i don't have all of the different groups and possibility's here. we let those who have the

samples of 20 because you have very few people in a particular group it becomes unstable at that time. >> the less substantive issue i need to address is what some of you might consider a bit on the pro michael sidey and i'm going to put forward the concept of a professional neglect hypophysis to illustrate what foley painlessly with just a few levels. we get 9.2 million arrested in 2009 by gary melton and his colleagues someplace between eight to 15% of these probably having questionable competency to stand on trials of some pretty extensive work my colleagues and i did to encompass this to stand trial and have issues in likely in parents and also to or 3% of the detainees have mental

retardation and about half of those are likely to have miranda impairment. it's too late in the day to do that but consider, in other words to conservative estimates, the lower estimate which is about half of the higher estimates and just let's look at the mentally challenged completely from this and the detainee's with probable miranda. degette the juvenile in fact it's looked at this and varies by age and the conservative estimates i realize in fact as we begin to put the 11,000 will be a conservative estimate at that time. based on extrapolations and her colleagues in the 2007 think an optimistic number would be there

about 5,000 miranda weaver evaluations. so there is the disconnect, something i consider to be an unsettling issue. we think in terms of notice i'm not saying there are miranda in paris would probably impaired based upon the conservative estimates probably about 600,000 doing if less than 5,000 why this happens i think this is one potential explanation and this is an area that we overlooked today everybody knows it it has to be done as a texas phrase not to get it and then in fact only those have misconceptions seem to have fled to this general professional neglect which is saying if you minutes for questions the stock is in the

framework of public policy i slept in one or two sleds in the public policy. i think we desperately need more empirical research in the last ten and a half years has been 123. you studies, this was in psychology and that's not necessarily empirical studies it is a peer review the study. compared to the psychology where we have had 1400 in the same time period our work suggests people who are in the tank preeminent perhaps still smiling from last night, whole different occur but individuals involved to our stabilized and it's been held for a week. those of you in the social psychology area i would recommend and to myself, too, not trying research. even some interesting studies asking people to steal to the great participation and then in

the case you get caught on the closed-circuit tv and eight mirandize you and find that even that modeled stress that was causing significant decrements not even among the individuals prone to be somewhat anxious major decrements in the devotee to comprehend and that lasted less than two minutes. nothing at all. some of you recognize the ethical constraints of all of this doing the research that we have, more ecological really did. clearly i think if we look at this for the professional neglect hypophysis the only viable approach to this would be trained in terms of clinical and forensic psychologist. it seems psychology is used assessment measures elected to note that we have several potential advances i think in this area particularly including the illegal scheme.

clearly we need training in the defense and prosecution as well as judges. prosecution sometimes uses as a subterfuge i think it very differently. i think there's more in it or as much for the prosecution now seeking better ways to do this more airtight cases coming and would be a very short-sighted approach to say that is just a defense maneuver as opposed to treating it as a real issue. not right and saw the defeat does the six rocket science example is for a civil we are videotaping the juvenile offenders and reading aloud their miranda rights. they've accomplished two things. one is fake reading it and an assignment which you are required for the rate in some instances. but secondly we can actually test and have some knowledge of could they even know the words were as they stumbled through. so i would like to -- in closing

this is our compliments of a sheriff in the county in terms of her presentation this is not what she gave to the offender's but suggested was a real miranda warning, the right to silence and you would be stupid to talk to us no matter how nice or no matter how much we want to hear your side of the story. if you do talk to us we will take everything you say and hang with it. we have the right to an attorney and the first thing he or she is going to tell you is to shut up. thank you very much. we have time for one or two questions. [applause] maybe one question. thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] ..