5/11/2012
Porterville, CA

John
Smith/Monache
J.D.B., the kid who was interrogated, should have been read his Miranda rights. He was not informed of these rights, and his legal guardian was not notified. Even though the police detective told the boy that he could leave, the boy was not allowed his right to be informed of his rights, and that is what matters here.

---

5/10/2012
Porterville CA

Anthony
Smith/Monache
Yes I believe the police should read everyone the Miranda rights no matter what. Age does not matter on the Miranda rights everyone should be treated as equals no matter what the age is. If I were a student I would like to know my rights even if I didn’t understand.

---

3/23/2012
Belleville Ny

Timmy
Miss Colby
the kid should have had his miranda rights read to him, however i do not feel the guardian had to be notified, its not like the kid was hardcore interrogated i mean come on people grow up.

---

1/5/2012
Montgomery, Texas

Aaron
Metgar, Montgomery High school
The boy should have been read his rights. The grandmother should have been notified of the questioning and been present during it too. He also should not have been searched without permission from his guardian.

---

12/5/2011
Scotts Valley/CA

Edward S.-J.
Mrs. Culli/SVMS
I think that the detective should have read the boy his Miranda rights. I am 13, and yes, I feel that there is very definitely pressure to stay in the room when being questioned by an authority figure, e.g. a policeman or vice principal. I also agree with L. Johnson, post of 9/14/11, with D. Renders, post of 10/7/11, and A. Ries, post of 10/19/11. The guardian should have been there to explain the ramifications of the teenager's questioning.

---

10/19/2011
Sidney, MT

Ashley U
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe that this situation could have been treated way better. I think when they brought the child in his legal gaurdin should have been in the room. She also should have been able to talk to him about this before.

---

10/19/2011
Sidney Montana

Abbey Ries
Ms. Fontana
Miranda rights should be read to anyone no matter their age if they are being questioned about something. The student's guardian should have been notified of the interrogation even if his guardian has no idea about the reason they are questioning the student. I believe that the police and school should have talked about the situation before they questioned the student to see if they could figure out a way to not scare the student but calmly tell him that they are going to ask him questions about the home burglaries that have happened in his neighborhood and that his grandmother would be told about the questioning.

---

10/7/2011
Sidney Montana

Dustin Renders
Mr. Faulhaber
No matter the age of the person being questioned they MUST be read their Miranda rights. Also, as a thirteen year old kid there is no way he would be able to interpret or understand what his rights actually are, therefore a legal gardian should have to be present for any questioning to begin. I am sure that the thirteen year old kid was scared and said whatever he thought that the cop wanted to hear. I believe that this situation was handled very poorly by both the school and the policemen.

---

9/14/2011
Dirty Bee, Texas.

Laquisha Johnston
Ms. Thorton!!
In the case of J.D.B v. The State of North Caolina, I think he should have been read his Miranda rights and his grandmother should have been notified about the questioning. Regardless of whether or not it was at school and there were adults in the conference room with him, his legal guardian should have been notified and with him and he should have been given his Miranda rights.

---

9/14/2011
Beeville Texas

Leslie
A.C. Jones
I think that the 13-year old boy would or could have read his Miranda rights, he probably wouldn't have confessed to the crimes. Because it is as if he just finally confessed to the crimes just because all the pressure of the questioning. Also I think that his legal guardian should have been notified before all the questioning began.

---

5/19/2011
Philadelphia/PA

Laura H.
Mr. Frank/8th period/Northeast High School
I think that a minor like the boy should have had his Miranda rights given to him because since he's a minor, he should have the right to remain silent into his parents are present. A minor should not be able to speak and be in custody without his parents being present and without having a lawyer or somebody that can protect his rights. I think that if i was in that situation i would have wanted to have my parents present or at least they should know what is going on at school and that way they could protect me if they ask me anything i don't kow about. I think that further on into the future i would love for them to continue reading the Miranda rights to the other kids because they deserve to know their rights and also to have somebody present representing him.

---

5/16/2011
Philadelphia/PA

Emani S.
Mr.Frank/Northeast High School Phila
I think that a minor has the right to remain silent. A minor cant speak for themselves they have to have a parent or a legal gardian with them for a detective to ask them any questions and have them answered. No person has the right to hold any minor until confession because since they are a minor and have the right to remain silent because they are so young and need a legal gaurdian there, they shouldnt be held under no right. If i was that 13 year old I would feel uncomfortable because i am getting interrogated by a detective and my parent doent know anything about that. I know that being so young and not knowing what a Miranda Right is still shouldnt stop the Juvenile from feeling that he has to confess to the detective without a parent being present. As from what i know detectives and police are not allow to question or interrogate a juvenile unless a legal guardian or parent is present. As the child might feel uncomfortable the parents also think that without there permission or there prrescences have noright tio do anything without there permission. My mother would have a fit if any type of law enforment tried to interrogate any of her kids while they are juveniles without her presence.

---

5/10/2011
Sidney

Brooke S.
Sidney High School
I that that if a 13-year old boy should be read the Miranda Rights. If I was in that boys position I would feel like I was in custody and had to confess. I also think that when I was 13 I didn't even know what the Miranda Rights were and how it could help me. I don't think that your age should matter. Becoming a citizen of the U.S. gives you rights and I think they should be excercised correctly.

---

4/14/2011
Irving/TX

Mirna L.
Bradley/Nimitz High School
Personally, I believe that we are all entitled to the same rights, no matter what our age is. If a 13 year old boy is old enough to be interrogated without his legal guardian present, he is old enough to be read his Miranda rights. I strongly believe that if the officer would have read the boy his rights, maybe the young boy would have realized it was better to leave than to incriminate himself. I know that if I was in a position like that I would feel like I had no choice but to tell the truth and confess, but that's not true. We are all protected from self-incrimination by the 5th amendment, no matter what our age is. Even though the officer gave the child the option to walk out and leave without answering anything, I think we can all agree that we would be equally intimidated by any police officer and we would want go along with anything they say or ask of us, with fear of getting deeper into trouble. I definitely don't think police officers should consider age as a factor for informing suspects of their Miranda rights.

---

4/14/2011
Irving/Texas

Jennifer
Bradley/ Nimitz
I believe that it was the student's right to have his Miranda rights read to him before being interrogated. I feel as if J.D.B's defense attorney is completely correct about the boy feeling pressured to stay in the room. Personally, if I had been in the same situation a few years ago, I would have assumed that by leaving I would only cause myself more trouble. Because of the detective's unfulfilled duties, the boy was not aware of what his legal rights were, and therefore could have been susceptible to whatever the detective had to say.

---

4/14/2011
Irving/Tx

Demi S
Bradley/Nimitz High School
In my opinion, the detective should have full-filled his duty of informing the 13-year old boy of his rights-as he would do to any other suspect. The age of the suspect should not have any effect on whether they are entitled to the same rights as others and all measures should be taken to ensure the child is not discriminated upon due to an age difference. Seeing as the detective did not follow what was obviously stated in the self-incriminatation part of the Fith Amendent, the young boy was not informed of his rights and may have felt obligated to do what the detective wanted. Personally, if I were placed in the same situation as the boy I would have been frightened and immediately felt inferior to the high-ranking officials, forcing me to do whatever they asked. Although the option of leaving would have been given, I would have stayed due to the fear of getting in even more trouble and sheer embarrassment. It is obvious all have different opinions and reactions when placed in this situation, but that still does not change the fact that what the detective did was unjust in the fact that he did not follow the proper prcedure.

---

4/8/2011
Irving/TX

Josh J
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the detective should have at least mentioned to the student about the Miranda because it is unlawful to question someone that young about a crime that he might not even have committed. I think about my reactions if I was put in that situation and I would really feel susceptible to statements that the detective might be saying. Just because the student knew that he didn't have to say anything and that he could just leave doesn't mean that he understood the situation. Him/her was only 13 and really had no clue to real punishments other than being sent to the principal office or being grounded. It doesn't matter about what age the person is, law is law. Miranda rights should always be read in any situation to where someone is being asked questions or else the interrogator is just collecting evidence that would be overruled in court because there is no proof that any of the answers might be true.

---

4/8/2011
.

.
.
In the case of J.D.B. v. the State of North Carolina, J.D.B was in my mind self-incriminated, a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment. The police detective used his authoritative figure to pressure the minor into confessing a string of burglaries in and around his neighborhood. This is of course after the detective “forgot” to read the minor his Miranda rights, before questioning him. He clearly should be found not guilty, although not right, when the law is not followed properly; criminals go free.

---

4/7/2011
Roseburg,OR

Duke
joyanna/ M.T. Nebo
I think that J.D.B. had his rights violated and that we kids should have more rights than the adult because we are not old enough to consent so i don't believe we should be punished for our choices when we are told that were not old enough to make choices.

---

4/7/2011
Irving, Tx

Kimberly O
Bradley/Nimitz
The detective should have read the student his rights, because that is part of his job. The 13 year old most likely felt extremely pressured and completely forgot about his rights as a human being. If your underage, like J.D.B., then his grandmother should have been notified that he was being taken to questioning. That detective was not doing his job at all obviously. Yes, I think officers should consider the persons age before doing anything, and no matter what, read them their rights.

---

4/7/2011
Schuylerville/NY

Sebastian
Winter/Schuylerville
These charges should be thrown out. Follow due process and you will get the information the legal way. As mock trial advocate, I would have exploited this illegal coersion with some force. This was an absolutely ridiculous use of power and bullying tactics in order to get the information wanted. I am disgusted beyond all things.

---

4/6/2011
anchorage/alaska

seouquia
koester/wendler middle
I think that there was no need to read him his rights because the did not put him in custody.i also think that because he freely and willingly stayed even though he knew he didn't have to.They did not interrogate him,they asked him questions.I do believe that they should have called the boys parents to notify them that he was going to be questioned or that he was a suspect.

---

4/4/2011
Greencastle, PA

Gabriel
Greencastle- Antrim HS
The detective took complete advantage of the 13 year. Who probably did not know his constitutional rights. Since he is a minor his guardian had to be notified of the interrogation and should have been in the room, but of course that did not happen. Thus all evidence that they got during the interrogation SHOULD BE THROWN OUT, because they were illegally obtained. The US Supreme Court ruled in In re Gault that juveniles had the same due process rights as adults such as the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.Although he most likely a criminal and guilt of the crime. That does not mean that police should be able to not play by the rules. Also, even though he was told that he could leave the conference room without being questioned. At the young of an age I could see he being taken advantage of him by easily pressuring him to stay.

---

4/1/2011
amsterdam/ny

elissa
palczach
Although the child deserved to be punished he was taken advantage of by the law enforcement. Everyone has the right to be read their miranda rights before questioning, and because the police figured he didnt know of this they decided they did not have to do it. Yes this may have made their job easier, but they were wrong. This was completely unfair to the 13 year old boy and because the police did not follow the law he should be let off.

---

4/1/2011
Philadelphia PA

Andrea
Ms.Agnew
Yes I believe the detective should have advised the student of his Miranda rights before questioning because it's not fear that you can question a young teen without their parents around. Sometimes that can be overwhelming to a person. It also helps the detective to get over because it's easy for them. Their job is to tell them before going any further with their case.

---

4/1/2011
Philadelphia/PA

Antoine
Ms.Agnew /Overbrook High School
I think personally, the kid is just like any other person, whether kid or adult you should always be told your right by a law enforcer. The kid may not have been guilty but due to the long and hard interrogation he may have felt nervous and just confessed to the crime. He also may not have known that he had the right to remain silent and i think that the enforcers took advantage of that.

---

3/27/2011
Schuylerville/NY

Nate
Winter/Schuylerville
As much as i'm happy with the fact that a burglar and criminal was brought to justice i think that there is a definite problem with this case. Every American citizen is guaranteed his/her Miranda rights, and if he/she is not read them, then their testimony can not be used in a court of law. Just because he is a kid and technically under the jurisdiction of the school doesn't mean that he isn't also under the jurisdiction and rules of the nation. In a case the size of this, involving larceny or a serious offense, he is given the same basic rights as adults, and he should have been read the Miranda Rights.

---

3/25/2011
Indianapolis/IN

Nicole
Songleton/Ben Davis
Yes he should have been read his miranda rights. He was being questioned and its unconstitutional to not read him his rights as it states that you have the right to an attorney.

---

3/25/2011
Indianapolis/IN

Samantha
Singleton/BDHS
I do believe that even though the boy was only 13 years old he still deserved the right, as any other citizen would, to be read his rights. I think that if they are too young to understand what these rights mean that they should have them explained to them. Officers should not consider age when determining whether they should tell suspects their Miranda rights because that child is just like any other adult that would be held in custody.

---

3/25/2011
Indianapolis/Indiana

Charnay
Singleton/Ben Davis
When I was 13 I probably wouldn't have thought that i was in custody, but at the same time the police should know to read everyone their Miranda Rights. it wasn't fair to the student, who probably didn't know that the sistuation was that serious. Age should not be considered when being interrogated, but the Miranda Rights should always be read.

---

3/25/2011
Indpls./IN

Kelsey
Singleton/BDHS
I think that regardless of a person's age, they should always be read their rights. Just because a person is a juvenile does not make them any less a citizen. I think the detective should have definitely read the boy his Miranda rights. Because the boy was so young he probably wasn't aware that he was in custody when he was in the conference room at his school. I think that when officers are reading a younger person their Miranda rights, they should use words that make it easy to understand instead of words they would use to explain these rights to an adult.

---

3/25/2011
Indianapolis/IN

Austin P
Mrs. Singleton/ Ben Davis High School
This is incredibly and undoubtedly considered to be unconstitutional. This student was coerced into giving himself up. The police officer completely disregarded the miranda rights of the student and just kept on prodding until the student gave him what he wanted. yes the student did choose to stay, but not many young kids are going to leave the confrence room because they would feel pressured to stay. so the evidence found with this warrant that wasn"t legit. so this case should be started over, and done legally this time

---

3/25/2011
Rudyard, Mt

Cody
Elizabeth Campbell/North Star
I believe that the 13-year-old boy somewhat deserves of what situation he was in, and what he done. But he was pressured. But he saw a burglaries happening, and he sould've got someone. But later on, the police came with the search warrent and found the items that was stolen by the burglaries.

---

3/25/2011
Indianapolis, IN

akaash A
Singeleton, BDHS
Yes, the dectective should've read and explained the boy's Miranda Rights. Yes, age matters greatly in this situation.

---

3/25/2011
Indpls. IN

Tiffany
Ms. Singleton
I believe that that because the child had the chance to leave but decided not to, that we can't completely blame the police. Hoever, I don't think it was constitutional for the police to not read the Miranda rights, and they deffinitely shouild've told the parents since the boy is under-age.

---

3/25/2011
Montana

Jordan
Mrs. Campbell/North Star
Officers should not merely consider age when determining when to read people their Miranda rights--they should read suspects their rights every time, without fail. When I was 13, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have been terrified and believed I was in custody when called in for questioning. The situation would have been extremely uncomfortable and intimidating for anyone unfamiliar with law enforcement officials, especially young teenagers. The age gap is large enough that the level of intimidation has a major effect on the answers offered and the bravery of the subject is inconsequencial. They cannot be expected to recall the officer's obligation to read them their rights. They need a reminder because they are most likely panicking and don't understand when and where they are in custody. They are more likely to be confused and are subject to coercion by the police. If there was ever a demographic who absolutely needed their rights read to them prior to questioning, it would be the young suspects of today.

---

3/25/2011
Indianapolis/IN

Cassie S.
Mrs. Singleton/Ben Davis
The detective definitely should have read the Miranda Rights to the student. A child is greatly influenced by adults and police and without a parent or guardian in the room, a 13-year-old most likely wouldn't know his or her rights. Since it is not certain what the boy would have confessed after hearing his rights, I agree with Tarah that the evidence found should be discarded.

---

3/25/2011
IN

tamara
BD
i think all people of all ages should be read their rights. it's rediculous that that people under 18 have basically no rights.

---

3/25/2011
Rudyard, MT

Zach
North Star High School
Sending a kid into a room full of adults, that also are viewed as authority figures and asking him questions might as well be the same as arresting an interrogating him at the police station. No young student with any type of respect would have walked out of a room with such authority figures feeling it would be the wrong thing to do. This young man should of been informed of his miranda rights because to him it was just a chat not an interrogation. He has the right to know his rights.

---

3/25/2011
Indianapolis/IN

Hunter
Singleton/BDHS
I believe that the questioning was unconstitutional. They should have read him his Miranda Rights. He was a young boy who obviously was lost in life because of the crimes he committed. They had evidence based on his confession, but it was the wrong way to go about it. No matter the age, reading someone their Miranda Rights is the law.

---

3/25/2011
Montana

Tarah
Mrs. Campbell/North Star School
There is no way the questioning done can be called constitutional. The police deliberately overlooked the Miranda Rights, I believe, so J.D.B. would feel like the conference was more relaxed and not police official. Sure, he was given the chance to leave, but that doesn't equate the right to a lawyer, guardian, or silence. As it is unsure what the boy would have done if he heard the familiar Miranda rights, I believe the evidence found due to his illegitimate "confession" must be thrown out and the police should find more evidence to convict him, the legal way this time.

---

3/25/2011
Amsterdam

Erika and Michela
Amsterdam High School
The detective was correct in not reading the Mranda rights to the student. For a child only thirteen years old they may not have completely understood it or even gotten upset by it. The student even had the chance to leave but instead stayed for more questioning. The detective was wrong in not notifying the legal guardian when the student was being questioned due to the child's age.

---

3/24/2011
salt lake utah

dalu k
bryant worthington
the detective had no right not to read him his miranda rights the student may have commited a crime but he still deserved his rights