Collecting informed consent with juvenile justice populations: issues and implications for research.

Researchers must provide participants with opportunities to make informed decisions about whether to participate in research studies. Investigators conducting research with youth in the juvenile justice system face unique ethical, legal, and practical challenges to obtaining informed consent. Juvenile justice researchers must navigate multiple legal and ethical standards for collecting informed consent, take into account youths' dual vulnerabilities as children and prisoners, and overcome practical limitations to obtaining parental/guardian permission. Given the challenges and complexity of obtaining standard informed consent of youth in juvenile justice facilities, this paper provides suggestions for overcoming obstacles to recruiting these youth for research participation. It offers guidance for fostering the enrollment of juvenile justice youth in research studies using procedures that comply with ethical and legal standards for research with this dually vulnerable population.

Psychometric properties of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments with a juvenile justice sample.

This article describes the psychometric properties of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments, the revised version of Grisso's Miranda instruments. The original instruments demonstrated good reliability and validity in a normative sample. The revised instruments updated the content of the original instruments and were administered to a sample of 183 youth in pre- and postadjudication facilities. Analyses were conducted to establish the psychometric properties of the revised instruments and included similar analyses to those conducted by Grisso, as well as additional calculations (e.g., standard errors of measurement, intraclass correlation coefficients, Kappa coefficients). Results revealed sound psychometric properties, similar to those observed for the original instruments.

Risk communication of terrorist acts, natural disasters, and criminal violence: comparing the processes of understanding and responding.

Risk communication is an important vehicle for the scientific understanding of the perception of and response to various kinds of threats. The present study provides apparently the first empirical attempt to compare perceptions, decision-making, and anticipated action in response to threats of three kinds: natural disaster, violent crime, and terrorism. A total of 258 college undergraduates were surveyed using a vignette-based, 2 × 2 × 3 between-subjects design that systematically manipulated threat imminence (high vs. low), risk level (high vs. low), and nature of the threat (natural disaster vs. crime vs. terrorism). There were substantial differences in participants' perceptions and reported actions in response to natural disaster, relative to the other domains of risk, under conditions of high risk. The risk of natural disaster was more likely to lead participants to report that they would change their daily activities and to relocate. It was also more likely than terrorism to lead to action securing the home. It appears that the mechanisms for perception, decision-making, and action in response to threats cannot be generalized in a straightforward way across these domains of threat.

Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference.

Although most criminal cases are disposed of through the process of plea bargaining, little research has focused on this process, and that research has focused on two variables: probability of conviction and potential sentence. This study examined the plea bargaining process from the perspective of the criminal defense attorney and expands prior research by including a third variable: defendant preference regarding plea. Attorney participants (N = 186) responded to a survey containing a vignette presented in a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design, in which there was systematic manipulation of the following three variables in the context of criminal litigation: likelihood of conviction based on the strength of evidence, defendant preference regarding plea, and potential sentence if convicted. All of these variables were considered important to criminal defense attorneys, and how these variables significantly interacted with each other is explained. We discuss these findings in light of past research and theory that suggested attorneys make plea recommendations according only to probability of conviction and potential sentence, and we discuss implications and directions for future research.