How Does Literacy and Culture Affect Understanding the Miranda Warning?

Based on a 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, it was found that most average Americans could read between the eighth and 9th grade level. Another study in 2003, along with an update to the 1992 study in 2006, showed no significant difference or change in this literacy level. Language fluency, cultural differences, or that English may not have been the citizen's primary language was not differentiated in the 1992 study, but was incorporated into the latter ones. With the normal literacy level of the majority of United States citizens reaching only the 8th grade level and with language and cultural barriers that may (and do) exist between other US citizens, there is a need for the Miranda warning to be compiled into an explicit, clear, straight forward and fully explained manner.

Approximately 20 percent of United States citizens are able to read at the lowest literacy level. This translates into an important and significant number because these individuals can only read a short text paragraph to find a single piece of information or do research on one single piece of information based on finding a literal word for word match. The same group of people can only complete math steps such as simple counting or sorting numbers and dates. It has also been noted that people with low reading skills are most often the same people that have low-paying jobs, need public assistance, are unwed parents, become high school dropouts, and are liable to be arrested more often for both misdemeanor and felony crimes.

Not only do most citizens not understand specific laws in the United States, there is plenty of evidence that they do not understand exactly what rights Miranda is suppose to provide for them. This is evident by the number of criminal cases on appeal with Miranda as the litigated issue or the cases that have been overturned because Miranda was used improperly or despite cultural differences concerning language and legal concepts. These word games can only harm a criminal case, especially once it reaches an appellate level due to incorrect policies or actions.

The Miranda warning cannot state what your rights are without explaining those rights fully. Just as many question the meaning of the "right to silence" in when does that right begin or end, the "right to counsel" is not explained in a manner that a suspect understands that his right to an attorney is immediate and before any questioning by the police officers. Nor can the Miranda warning be filled with "legalese" that most citizens of the United States would not understand or those who have a less than adequate comprehension of what certain words mean.

Therefore, the question becomes one of just how explicit, clear, and concise do Miranda warnings need to be. The answer is "absolutely clear" and without equivocating "grey areas" that provide legal loopholes that may take away anyone's rights to self-incrimination, the right to silence, and the right to an attorney. Although a fully articulated, explained Miranda warning may take a police officer a few more minutes to give and one that is not worded in such a way as to allow legal loopholes that take away any of the rights provided by Miranda through the United States Constitution, will justice be served.

Sources:
The State of Adult Literacy 2006, by ProLiteracy Worldwide, 2006
1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, September 1993
How Does the United States Compare, Education Commission of the States (ESC), 2006