ImprovingtheComprehensionof CanadianPoliceCautions By
Joseph Eastwood
in partial fulfilment of the requirements forthedegree of
Doctor ofPhilosophy Department of Psychology,Facultyof Science
Memorial Universi tyof Newfoundland August,20 l l
Inmosl English-speaki ngWeslem countries, ind ividuals facing a poli ce interview are presentedwilhvariouslegal righ ls lhro ugh lhedeliveryofapassageoflexlknownasa policecaution(or waming).Research has cons istent lysho wn thatpeop Ie struggle10fully underslan d lhe lega lrigh lsdelivered lhro ughpolicecaulions.Thepurposeoflhecurrenl research wastoimprovethe comp rehensionof Canadianpolice ca utionsbyanalyzin gthe cautionscurre ntly inuseand identif yingwaysto alter their struc ture toincrease comprehensib ility,InStudyI,thecomplexi lyof 44uniqueCanadianpolicecautionswas assessed using fivereada b ility measur es (Flesch-Kinca idrcad inglevel,se ntcnce complex ity, usc of difficult words,usc of infrequ ent words, and number ofword s).
Resultsshowed thatseven(37%)oftheright -to-silencecautions(II;19) and noneof lhe righl-lo-legalco unselcautions( II ;25) reached acce plablecuI-off levelsforall 5 measur es.In Study2. particip ant s(N =t2 t)wer epresentedwithoneofthreecautions orallyandasked to explain its meanin g.Despit evar iation s incornplexit y acrossthe three cautio ns.part icipant sunderstood appro ximate lyone-th irdof theinfonnation containedin thecaulion s.ln StudyLrheextent10whichmod ifying apoli ce cautionusing three Iistenability factors (Instructions.Li sting.and Explanation)i mprovedcomprehens ionW3S
exami ned.Panic ipan ls(N ;I60)were presentedorallywilho neofeighlcaul ionsand asked10recordlheir unde rsland ing ofwhallh eyh eard.Only theExplanations rnodification prod uced a signific anteffect.suggestingtha t repeatingtheinformation
containedin the cautionin different terms increascdco mprehension.Study4assessed the validityof the free recallmeasures usedinthepriorstudies by presenting participants in oneofthree condit ions(CreatedIFully Modified caution.Calgarycaulion.Baseline/No caution) with analternatefree recall measure. true/falsequestions,andmultiple-choice questions.Results from this study demonstrated the same.albeitsmailer.effectasseen in free recall studies,and alsoidentifiedseveralcomponentsof cautions chatappearto be consistently misunderstoodacrossall measures.Theimplications of chisresearch for psychologicalresearch on comprehension oforally-delivered information arediscussed, alongwith practicalrecommend ations for improvingthe legal-counselcaut ions curreruly used by Canadian policeagencies.
Acknow ledgmen ts
FirstandforemostIwould like10thankmy wifeforher willingnesstotagalong onthis joumey-withou the rencouragement, prayers,andtheoccasional nudge,it is doubtful I would have madeitthmugh.ToBrent. you arc a creditto yourprofessionand supervisors everywhere-simplypul,lwou ldnever havecompletedthisprojectwi thoutyou rguidance, I wouldlike to thankmy thesis committee membersIan NeathandMalcolm Grant fortheir helpful comme ntsandsuggestio nsatallstages ofmyresearch,Iwouldalso be remiss ifI didn'tacknow ledge my fellowstudentsfortheirpracticalassistaneethroughou t the years:
JamisonMercer, SarahChaulk, SarahMacDonal d, and KirkLuther-ittruly was ateam effort.Iwouldalsolike toexpressmyappreciatio n tothe Social SciencesandHumanities Research Counc il forthe financialassistancetheyhaveprovidedthro ughout my graduate degrees.Itshould benotedthatstudiesIand 2 ofthisthesishavebeenpublishedin Criminal Just iceand Beha viourand Study3hasbeen publishedinLaw& HumanBeha vior.
Finally.abig thank you to my famil y andespeciallymyparents. therootsof allmy success canbe tracedback to you .
"v..H'llllte"'eryolll!o.Joalltolheg{oryofGod. ··(ICorill1h illIlS 10:31)
Chapter I:Introduction.... ..
l.lLegaIRi ghtsA ffordedtolnlerviewees... 1.2 LackofComprehension ofLegalRights....
1.3 Comprehensionof Orally-DeliveredInformation....
Chapter2:Study1....
2.2.2Complexitya nalysis .
2.3.1 Right-to-silence ....
2.3.2Right-lo-legal counsel... ..
Chopter3:Study2 43
3.I.1Somple....
3.1.4Codingparticipant answers...
3. 1.51nler·mterre liobilily...
3.4 Concluding Thoughts ...
Chopter4:Study3.. .. .. 62
4.2.ISom ple.... .. 68
4.2.2Moteriols ondde sign.. .... . 69
4.2.4Codingpol1iciponl onswers... .. 72 4.2.51nler·mterreliobil ily ...
ChapterStStudy-l......
5.I.lSample 88
5.1.2 Materialsa ndd esign 88
5.1.4 Cod ing pan icipamanswers 92
5.1.5 lnter-rater reliability 93
5.2.1CreatedIFully Modified andCalgarycautions
Chapter 6:General Discussion....
Table 2.1Complex ity Measu res forRight-to-Sil ence Cautions....
Table 2.2Complex ity MeasuresforRight-to-Legal CounselCautions.
Table 3.1Frequencyof LegalRequir ement sMet foreach Right-to-Legal Counsel
Table 4.1 Percent age of Each of the NineCautionComponentsComprehended AcrosstheE ightC onditions...
Table 5.1 Percenta geof QuestionsAnsweredCorrectl yforEachof the Nine VignetteQuestions....
Table5.2Percent ageof QuestionsAnswered Correct ly forEachof theSeven Multiple-Choic eQuestion s....
List of Figures Figur e 3.J.Thepereentageo f part ieip ant s, andass oe iated95%eonfidenee intervals,who understood eaeh oftheninecomponent sof the right-to-legal
Figure 4.1.The averagecomprehensionscore.and associated 95%confidence intervals.for each ofthe 8unique cautions....
Figure4.2.The average comprehensionscore.andassociatcd95%confidence
intervals.for eachofthe three modifications /J
Figure5. J.The pereenlageofpa rtie ipants,andassoeialed95%eonfidenee intervals, who understood eaehof the nine compone ntsof the right-to- legal
Listof Appendi ces AppendixA. TestofLegal Counse l Caution Comprehens io n....
Appendi xB.Test of LegalCounselCautionComprehe ns ion .
Cha pter 1:Introdu ct ion
In order to correct the power imbalance created when an individual isdetainedby state authorities.individualsfacing a policc interviewin most English-speakingWestern
countries are afforded the right toremaio silent and the right to acces s legal advice (Greenfield &Witt.2(05).Itis imperativethat interviewees understand these legal rights fuJly so thatthey have the opportunity to either properlyexercise orvalidly waive them (StuaI1.2005).lntervieweesaretypicaJlymadeawareoftheirrighlslhroughlheoral dclivcryofapassageoftextknownasapolicecautionor waming.Unfortunately.s tudies conuuctcdacrossavarietyofco untries-inciudingCana da-haveshownt hati t is rarcfo r people10fuJlyunderstandthe legalrightsdeliveredthroughpol ice cautionsIliastwoodS, Snook.2009; Fenner. GlIdjo nssoo.&Clare.2 002:Grisso.1981). This lack of comprchensions ugges ts that interviewees' rightsa re notbcing protec ted properlya nd that subsequentstate ments takenbypolice intervi ewersmay beruledinadmissible.
As is thecase for any orally-deliveredinforrnationcomprehensionof police cautionsinvolvesthreecompone nts-the person sending the message.the person rcceivingthe message.and the message itself,Althoughpsychologicalresearch suggests thateach of these components can greatly impact comprchension.areviewof caution comprehensionstudies suggests that the factors associated with the sender and receiver cannot explain fullythe observed lack of understanding.Therefor c.the current project drawsupontherelevantpsychoJogicallileratureinordertoimprovecomprehensionby alteringthe message-thatis. the content and structure ofpolicecautions.
1.1LegalRights Afforded toInter viewees
\Vhen individuals are detained or arrested and face a police intervie w, they are aUlomaticallyplacedinapositionofdisadvantagereiativetotheaulhorities (R. v.Ban le.
1994). Due to this inherentpower imbalance.the majority of English- speaking Westernized countriesprovide peoplebeing questioned about theirinvol vement in a criminal offence with the right-to-legal counsel and the right-to-silence.Although the exact nature of these rights differsacross countries.they genera llyinc1ude the rightof individualsto contacttheir lawyer or getaccess to freelegalhelpiftheycannotafford a lawyer. andthe rightto freelychoosewhetherornot totalktothe police (Stuart,2005;
Miranda v.Arizona,1966;Gudjonsson, 2(03).Thepoli cemust allowinterviewees the opport unityto exerciseor waive these rightsbefore proceedingwithaninterview.andin orde rfor the waiving oftheir rights tobevalid.itmustmade withfullknowledge ofthe rightsbein g given up,
ln Canada.u detainee' slegalrightsarcoutlinedintheConadianCharterofRiglus alldFreedollls(l982;hencefonhreferredloasTheChllrter).The righl-to-legalcounselis containedinSeclion IO(b)of TheChllrterandstates that"Everyonehaslherighton arrest or detentiontoreta in andinstructcounselwithoutdelay and tobeinfonnedofthat right" .As clarified in subsequent cases (i.e..R.v.Brydges.1990; R.v.Banle.1994).lhe right-to -legalcounsel includes the following four basic rights: (ajto retain and instruct counsel (i.e..lawyer) withoutdelay.(b) to access immediate, temporary,legaladvice irrespectiveof financialstatusC·dutycounse ''') .(c) to obtain basic information abouthow
10access anyavailab leservices that provide free, preli minar ylegaladvice(e.g .,phone nu mber),and( d)upon being cha rged with a crime, to access legal counsel free o f ch arge whe reanaccus edmeets prescri bedfinancia lcriteri asetup by provincialLegalAidplans , The purpo se ofthisright is10provide ind ividualswiththe oppo rtu nitytoreceiv erelevant lega ladvicewithregards tohow to act duringthe upcom ing police interview.Any indiv idualarres tedor detainedbythe police mustbe informe dof these right s witho ut del ay, andall quest ionin gmustceaseuntil theaccused either waivestheserights or has a reasonabl e opportun ity to exerci sethem(Departmentof Justi ceCan ada,2004 ).
The right-to-silenceis derivedfrom Section7 ofThe Charter,whi chstates that
"Everyonehastherightto life.liberty andsecurity of theperson and the right not to be deprived thereo f exceptin accordance with the principlesof fundamentalj usticc".Case lawdictatesthat intervieweesmustbegiven a free choiceaboutw hethe ror nottospeak tothcpoliccandthatthc po licccannolintcrferewiththischoiccbyoffcringpromiscsor thrcals inc xc ha ngc fors pcaki ng(scc R.v.Hebe rt , 1990).Thisrightprotectsindividuals from beingforced to provide self-incrimi natingevidence. andanyrefusal tospeakt othe policcc ann otbcuscdtoinfcr guilt(R.v.Chambers,1990). Un like lhc right-lo-lcgal counsel.ho we ver. interviewers are notrequiredto adviseinterv ieweesof their right-to- silcnccupon dctcntion,and do not ncedancx plicitwaiveroflhcri ght tooccur bcfor c proce edi ngwith questi onin g (seeR.V.Papadopoulos.2006).Itis ass umedt hatif intervie weesexercise theirright -to-le gal counse l. the irlaw yerwill makethemawa reof thei rright torem ain silenttfituart.2005).
As mentioned. interviewees musteitherwaive or exercise theirright-to-lega l counselbcforethe interviewercan begin questioning.In order for waivers to be valid.
however,intervieweesmuslfullyunderslandtheirrighls,fullyunderstandhow they can beexercised.andappreciate the consequences of giving up thoserighls(R.\'.Bartle.
1994;Clarkson".71,eQueell,1986).As staledin Korponayv.Attorney Generalof Cl/Ill/da(1982),thevalidityof any waivervis dependentuponit being clearand unequivoca lthattheperson is waivingthe procedura lsafeguardandis doingso with full know ledgeoftherightstheprocedur e was enacted to protectandoftheeffectthe waiver willhave on those rightsintheprocess".Thus.failureto ensurecomprehensionnotonly mcans the individuals'rights are not beingprotccted.butcan alsolead to subsequent statements takenfroman intervieweebeingruled inadmissibleincourt(Marin,2004).
Similar rights aregranted todetaineesinthe United States aswell.Asoriginally laid oUlinMirall dl/ vs.A riZOIll/ (1966),in dividualsd etained bylh epolice must be made awareof the followingfour pieces ofinformation : (a) righttorem ainsilent.(b)any statements made could be usedas evidenceof guilt.(c)right to have an attorney present.
and(d)right to counselforindigent defendants (i.e.. attorneycanbeappoi ntedifsuspect cannotafford one; see Grisso. 1981).In addition.somelegal scholars andr esearchers have argued that a fifth piece of informal ionshouldbc includedas well-(e) detainees can exercise these rights atany time (Rogers. Harrison. Shuman. Sewell.&Haze lwood.
2007). As is the case in Canada. the arrestingauthorityneeds to make individuals aware of theserights withoutdelay.and detainees must be given anopportunity to exercise or
waive these rights (S tricker.1985 ).Inorder for awai verto be valid.thedetaineemust havefullawa reness ofthe rightsbeingwaived and the con sequen ces assoc iated with waivin gthem-thewaivermust be madevoluntar ily,knowingly,and intelligentl y (Colo ra dol'.Sp ri llg.1987:Fulero& Everington, 1995).AsfurtheroutlinedinGrisso (2003:ascited in Greenfield & W itt. 200 5), ino rder for a waiver to be va lid.an individ ualmust:(a) understandthe words and phrasesin theMirandawarni ng ,(b) accuratel y perceivethe purposesof the Mirandarights.includingthe natureof the interrogation. theattomey-c1ientrelation ship.andprotection fromself-incrim inatio n. and (c) have the capa cit yto reason about the potential co nse quences ofa waiver or non- waiver decision.Afailure of an interviewee toperform thesefunctionscan potentia lly leadto any waiver being ruledinvalid. andanystate mentsmade maybe excludedfrom futurelegalproceedings.
In Englandand Wales, the Pol ice and CriminalEvidence ActandCodesof
Practiceestablishedthatuponbeingarrested ,individua lsmustfirstbeinforrnedofthe followingfive basiclegal right s:(a)their rightto remainsilent,(b) the rightto legal advice, (c) the right to inforrnsomeo neoftheirarrest.(d ) the right to consulttheCodesof Practicewhichprovide additionaldetails reg ard ing their rights,and (e) the right toa cop y ofthe CustodyRecord (Gudjonsson,2003). Detainees are typic all yinforrned o f these rights orallyandgivenawritten leaf1et toread.known as the Noticeto DetainedPersons.
whichfurtheroutlines theserights(Gudjon sson, Clare, &Cross , 1992 ).Ifitis sho wntha t aninterv iewe edid notunderstandtheseright s.anystatements takencan be ruled
inadmissible (G udjonsso n.2oo3). Similarrights and procedur es existinothercountries withWesterni zedlegal systems aswell. suchas Australiaand NewZealand (G ibbons.
Areviewof legal rulingsfromEnglish-speaki ng Western countries has shownthat individ uals detainedbythe police are providedwiththeright to rem ain silent andthe right tocontact legal counselIe.g.•Mlmnda vsArizona.1966;Sluan .2oo5 ).lnaddilion.
courts in thesecountrieshave consistently ruledthatintervi eweesmust be clearly and fullyinformedof theserightste.g.•Clarksonv.TheQll een. 1986;Coloradov.Sprillg.
1987). Unlessintervieweesfullyunderstandtheir rights,not onIy aretheirrights not beingproperly protected.bUIanys ubsequcnl waiversof theserights can beruledinvalid.
Thus.it isin both the interviewee'sandthepoliceintervicwer'sbestinterestthatlegal rightsarc clearlyexplainedand fullyunderstood.
1.2 LackofCom prehensionof LegalRi~hts
In orderto make interviewee sawareof theirlegalrights,policeintcrviewers typicall yutilize standardized passagesoftextknownaspolicecautions.Policecautions, knownasMirandawarningsin theU.S.. contain theaforementionedlegalrightsandare usuall ydelivered orally bytheinterviewer(Snook.Eastwood,&MacDonald.2010;
Rogers.Harrison.Hazelwood.&Sewell.2007).Asidefromspecificsituations wherethe interviewee indicates al ack of understanding,int ervicwers aren otrequired to confirm comprehensio n beyonddeliveringastandardcaution(R. v, Bart le.I994).The refo re.itis essential thatpolice cautions areasinstructiveand clearaspossibles o thatinterviewees
can make a fullyinformed decisionregardingwhetherto exercise or waivetheirrights.
Unfortunately,resea rch from numerous countries hasshown consi stently thatpeople struggle to comprehend thecontentof policecautio ns.
Oneofthefirstsetofstudies in this area was conducted byGrisso (1981)in the United States, who lookedatcomprehensio nofjuveni leandadult Mirandawarnings.The juve nilesample(n=431)wasrecru itedfrom a police detent ioncentre anda schoo l facility,while the adultsampleconsistedof adultoffenders living inahalf-way house( n
=203)and non-offenderadultvolunteers(n= 57).Inordertotestcomprehension,he constructedthreeseparatemeasures-the Comprehensionof MirandaRights (CMR),the ComprehensionofMirandaRights,Trueor False(CMR-TF),and theComprehension of Miranda Vocabulary(CMV).For the CMR.partici pantswerepresentedwitheach ofthe foursentenc es ofaMirand a warning,both orallyand inwrittenformat,andaskedto
explain the meaningofthe sentencein thei rownwords.Eachsentence wasscored outo f 2,with themaximum obtainablescorefor the CMRbeing8.Resultsfor thejuvenile group showedthat 20%ofpartici pantsobtained perfect comprehensionscores(i.e.• 8 out of 8).whilea further 20%scored 4orbelow.Appro ximately55%ofthejuveniles scored aOona t leastoneof thefourse ntencesofthe warning,indicating no understandingof thatcomponentof the warning.Theaveragescoreonthismeasurefor juvenil e swas 5.9.
Result s fortheadultgroupshowed that42%of participantsachie veda maximu mscore of 80n the measure,withno significant differences incomprehension observedbetwee nthe twoadultgroups(i.e.,offendervs.non-offende r)on thiso rt heo ther tworneasu res.
Approximately21%of adult part icip ants scored 4 orless onthe CMR.with23%of participantso btuiningaOona t leastoneof thcfou rwa mi ngse ntences.The averagescore onthis measureforadultparticipants was6.8.
The CMR·TFconsisted of12statements (3 foreachsentence of thewarning) whichwereeithersemanticallythesameorsemantically differentthan a corresponding sentence fromthe warning.Participants hadtodecide whetherornot eachstatement had the same meaning as thecorrespondingwarningsentence.andreceivedl pointfo rcach correctdecision -for amaximum possible total of12 points.Withregards to thejuven ile group.approximatelyII%ofparticipantsachieved the maxim um of12points.whileover 55%of juven iles scored at least alOonthismeasur e(itshould be noted that only 105 of the total sampleo f 43 1 juvenilesreceivedthis measuredue 10 teslingissues in the original study).The avera ge score forthejuvenilesthatreceiv edthismeasure was9.4.For thc adultg roup.3 6%of pan icipanlsac hieved aI20uI12.with over76%0ft hea dult participants scoringa t leaSl lOo n thismeasure.Theavc ragcscorefor the adultgroupon
TheCMVconsistedofsixcritical wordstaken fromthe Miranda warning(i.e..
appoint,attorney.consult.entitled.interrogation, right ).which partici pantswere asked10
theC MV.Withregardslothejuven ilegroup.o nly6%ofpanicipantscorrect lydefined all6 words (i.e..12 outof12).with approximately26%of juvenilesscoring 6 or below on themeasure.Over 63%of juvenile participants obtainedaOon Ieast one of the six
worddefinitio ns.andthe average score for the juvenilegrouponth is measure was 7.9.
Fortheadultgroup,approximate ly 14%ofpartic ipants correcl1ydefinedall 6 words,with 60%of adult participantsscoring10orabove on this measure.Approximate ly37%of adultparticipantsscoredaOon at least one of the sixword definitions•and the average score for the adultgroup on this measurewas 9.5.
Subsequentstudies ofMirandawarningshave focused primar ilyon comprehe ns ionby vulnerab lepopulations.Forexamp le,Fulero and Everington(I995) lookedatcomprehe ns ionofMiranda rights in 54 mentally retard ed ad ults.Particip ants weregiventhe three measures ofMiranda comprehension dev isedbyGrisso(1981:see above).For theCM Rmeasure , the overall mean comprehens ionscorewas 3.3(outof 8), with80%of parti cipant sscorin ga zero onat lea st oneofthefourMirlInda wa rning compo nents. The averag esco re on theCM R-TFwas 6.2(outof12 ).with 57%of partici pants scoring at orbelowchancelevel s on themeasure.Forthe CM V.theaverage
scorewas4.2 (outof 12).
A similarstudywas conducte dbyO' C onn ell, Garmoe ,and Gold stein (2005) using a samp leof 60 adults withmild mental re tardation.O'Co nnelletal.useda revised
and updatedversionof Grisso 's(198 1)original comprehensio nme asures.\v'hichinclude d the additionof a fifth componentto theMi randawarning.The measuresusedwere the Comprehensionof Miranda Rights -II(CM R- II),which asksparticipants to liste ntoand then paraphrase the meaning of the five components ofthe warni ng,and the Compr ehensionofMirandaRights-Recognuion-H(C~1 R - R- II).whichasks participants to
judge whetheror nota givensentence issemantically identicaltoo ne containedin the warning. Results forthe CMR-llshowedthat the average score was approximately 1.4 (outof10).withhalfof the participants scoringzero onallliveofthewarning components.'TheaveragescorefortheCMR-R-lIwasapprox imately8 .3(out of15). and only2%of participantsscored signilica ntlyabove chancelevelsonthismeasure.A third study byRogers.Harrison.Hazelwood et al. (2007) with a sampleof 107 mentally disordereddefen dantsfo undt halapproxi mately l5%ofparticipanlsshowed good understa nding(u nderstood>70%of information). whileap proximarely 48%of the participantsunderstoodlessthanhalf ofthe informationin thewam ings.Takcn togcthcr.
lheser esults suggestthatmentallyr etardcd anddi sordcrcd adults donothave the level of competency needed to validly waive their rights.aspresentedin Mirandawarnings.
comprehensio nwithinjuvenilesamples. In200 5. Viljoenand Roeschpresented Grisso's
(1998)Mi randascales to 152juveniles inadetention facility( M, g,=14.5 years). These scalesincluded the original three measures discussed above (i.e..CMR.CMR-R.CMV);
along with a fourthmeasurewhichassessestheappreciationoflegaIrightsusingseveral vignelles about legal scenarios (Function of Rights in lnterrogalion;FRI). The FRI
consislsof three subscales;Nature oflnterrogation.Rightto Counsel.andRight to Silence.The purpose of the vignettes isto assesswhether or notindividualscan 'In o rder toca.lculate these values.data were averaged acrossgroups with slightly unequalsample sizes. Therefore.the endvaluesreported in this document are not exact but closeapproximations,
appreciate the variousimplicationsof waivingtheir rights.Participants scored an avcrage of approximately5 (out of 8) on the CMR.approximate ly8.8 (outof12) onthe CMR-R.
andapproximately7.3 (outof12) on the CMV.The average scores for theNatureof Interrogation.Rightto Counsel. and RighttoSilencesubscalcswerea pproximatcly9.l, 7.3. and 4.9.respcctively(a lloutof10). Theresults.combinedwithGrisso's(1981) findingson juveniles'comprehensionofMiranda warning,suggests thatjuvenile offendersarc unlikelyto fully understand their legal rights inaninterviewsituation.
Studies conducted in theUnitedKingdo m have alsoshown that comprehension of
police cautions is low.As mentioned.detaineesare typicallyinfonne doftheirrights orally,andthen providedwith a copyof theNotice to Detained Persons (Notice).which is a written document thatreiteratesandfurtherexplainsthe dctainee' slegal rightsthat wereor iginally delivered orally by thc intervicwer. ln 1991.Gudjonsson measured comprehcnsionofthe Notice usinga sampleof15offenders(M'Q=82.Range = 63to 98).Participants were given an opportunityto study the document.and thcn eachofthe II sentences of the Notice was slowly read outto them with the Notice in front of them.
Aftereach sentence was read.participants were asked to providethe meaningofthe sentence.Even under these ideal conditions.participants,on average.correctly unde"tood6.50ftheIIsentences, with onlyone participantunderstandingevery sentence.Asecond study.whichemployed methodology similarto Gudjonsson(1991), analyzedunderstanding of theNoticeusingasampleof2 0 individuals withIQ'sin the normalrangeand20 individualswitha mild mentalhandicap (Clare&Gudjonsso n,
1991 ).Althou ghoverall comprehen sion values werenotpro vided.the autho rsconcluded tha tsome parts oftheNotice were too complex to unde rstand evenforpeopl e with average inte llectua lability,and this difficu lty was futther pro nouncedforindividualswith mental impa irmen ts.TheNoticewasrevised shott lyafterthes e two studie s,andthe comprehens ib ilityofthenewNoticewas subsequen tly tested byGudjon sson et al. (1992).
The Not ice wasfirstread out initsenti retyto eac h pa rticipa nt(n =3 1). Each sentence was thenreado utindividually while theparticipantsfollowed alongont heiro wnco pyof the docum ent.Aflereach sentencewasread aloud.part ic ipantswere askedto exp lainthe mean ingof what theyhad justheard.Thepercent age ofpatt ic ipants who understood the varioussentences rangedfrom23%to 77%,with anaverageof only41%ofthe sentences
beingunderstoodfullyby allparticipants.
Research ershavealsolookedspecificallyatthe right-to-silencecaution port ion oftheNotice.whichconsistsof threesentences.GudjonssonandClare (1994)measured
comprchensiono f the right-to-silenceca ution in threegro ups-45collegestudents.20 individ ualswith a learn ingdisabil ity, and 12 patient sin a forensicmenialhealth facility.
The cautionwas firstpresentedorallyinits entiretyandparticipantswereasked to explain the meaningofthecautio n. Participant s were then prov idedwitha copyofthe caution.a ndask ed toex plain the meaningofeachse ntcncei n turn(eachsentencewas also readaloudforparticipants inthe "learning disabilit y" and"forensic patient"groups).
\Vhenthe cautio n was presentedorallyinitsentirety.as it wouldbeinatypical police interview.only7%of thestudent groupandno participan ts intheother two groupswere
able toc o rrectly ex plain the entire meaningo f theca ution. \Vhen participantswereg iven a copy oflhe caution andaskedabout the sentencesindiv idua lly.58%of studentsfully unde rstoodthecaution.compared to 21%and 15%fortheforensic patientand learning disabilitygroups.respectively.
A similarstudywasconducted in 1995.usinga revised versionof the sHence caution(Shepherd. Monimer. &Mobasheri.1995 ).Shepherdetal.first prese nted pan ici panls(II = I09 )w ith the cautionora lly in ilse ntirelya ndass ess edcornprehension.
and thenpresented and assessedcompreh ensionofeachsentenceindividuall y.When prcsentedi nits enlirety. 27%of pan icipants underslood thefirs tse nlence.with 13%and 34%of pan icipants comprehendingthesecondand thirdsentences,respectively. When present ed sentence-by-sentence. approximately900/0of participantsunderstoodboth the
Clare. Gudjonsson ,andHarari (1998)examinedcautionc ompreh ensionu singa collegestudentgroup(II=72).a general public gro up(II= 15).and a police officer group (11= 2 1).Using thesame methodologyasGudjonsson andClare (1994).they found that appro ximately8%of thestudentandgeneral public groupscorrectIyexplainedthe caution whenpresentedorallyin its entirety. comparedlo 48% ofthepoliceofficergroup.
\Vhen prescntcd in sentence·by·sentencewritten fonn at.th e percentage ofp articipants whoexplainedalltheinfonna tionco ntaine din thethree sentences0fthe caution correctly rangedfrom13%forthegeneralpu blicgroupto86%fort hepoliceo fficergro up.
Asimilarstudy conducted byFenner etal.(2002) using a suspectgroup(II=30) and ageneral publicgroup ureJt)found thainoneofthe participants correctlyexplained allthe information contain edinthecautionwhenitwas presented0rallyin its entirety.
Whenpr esentedinthe sentence-by-scntence writtenf onnat.l0%ofthe suspect group
and l 3%of lhegeneralpublicgroups howed full underSlandingo f the rightsco ntained in the silencecaution.Similar resultshavebeenfound for theScottish right-to-silence cautio nas well.Cookeand Philip(1998)present edtheScott ish silence caulion orall y in itsentirety toasample ofyoungoffenders(II= 100).Result s show ed that onl yll%of participant shadcomplete underslanding of thecaution.wilh23%show ing no understanding.
Similar tostudies inotherjurisdic tions.researchinCanada hasalso shown that thecomprehens ionofCanadian caution sislackin g.In astudybyAbramovitch,Higg ins- Biss.andBiss(1 993).comprehension of cautions amongju venileswasexaminedbyfirst reading eachcautionaloudand then presentin gjuveniles witha writtenversion.Afterthe cautionwaspresentedin the twoformats.participants wereasked to repeat each caution in their ownwords. Theirresults showed that88%ofparticipantshad fullorpartial understandin gofthe right-lo-siJencecaution and 53%had fullor partial understanding of the right-to -legalco unselcaulion.Unfortunately,thestudy did not separateout the percentageof individualswho fullyunderstoodthe right-to-sitencecautionfro m those who partiallyunderstoodit. Anotherstudy.which reduced eachcautioninto asingle sentence and readthe sentencealoudtoa sampleof juveniles. showed that67%and 57%
of juveni lesfully understoodthe right-to -silence and right-to-legaI counsel cautions.
respec tively(Ab ramo vitch. Peterson-Bad ali,&Rohan .1995).
Inorderto furthertest the comprehen sion of Can ad ian police cautions.Dglo ff and Olley (1992 ) createdthe Testof CharterComprehe nsion(TOCC) .TheTOCCconta ins th reesectio ns. and closelymirrorsthemeasures created by Grisso (19 8 I)to test comprehens ion ofMirandawarnings.In Section I of theTOCC.participants were presentedwithfive sentences from a policecautionone at a time. bothorallyandin written format,andaskedto explainthemeaning of the sentence intheir own words. Eachsentcncewasgivenascorefrornzcro(nounderstanding)totwo(complete
understanding).fora maximum possiblescore of tenon thisscction.Section 2 consisted of thefive policecautio nsentences each beingmatchedwithtwo co mparisonscntenccs.
and participantswere asked todecid e whe theror not eachofthe comparisonsentences meant thesame thi ngasthecautio nsentence.Onepoi nt was given foreachcorrect answer.for a max imumpos sible sco reof te n onthiss ection. ln Section3.participants were presentedwith ten words from the policecaution(i.e.• arresting.Counsel.duty.
evidence.instruct.law yer.legaladvice.obliged.retain.right ) and askedto exp lain what the word meantin their own words.Each word definitionwas given ascore fromzero
(co mpletelyinco rrect) to two(co mpletely correct).for a maximumpossible scoreof twenty onth issection.
Inoneof the few large -scalestud iesthat utilized the TOCC.Olley (1998) ad min istered the TOCC toasampleof90members of the general publicand 126male
inmates.Overall Toeescores rangedfrom 20.84to 27.42 (outof 40). withlower scores seen forinmateswithahistory of mentalillness(M=20.84) and indiv idualswho spoke Englishas asecondlanguage(M=23.83).Memb ers ofthe genera lpopularionwho had English asthe irfirstlanguage scored highest across the three sub-seclions(6. 14.8.61,
t2.49.respectively).whileinmateswithahistory of mentalillness scored thelowest
(4.95.7.70. 8.18.respective ly).A secondstudy using a sampleof102male inmates found that overallTOeescores rangedfrom 28.87for non-disordered offe ndersto23.17for offenders with imellectualdisabilities (O lley .I998).Non-d isordered offenders also scoredsignificantly higheron thethree sub-sections (7,48.9.13.12.25) compared to the intellectua llydisabledgroup(6.07. 8.07.9.03).These findingsmateh theresultsfrom a preliminaryexaminationofthe TOeeby Olley(1993).andsuggest thatcomprehe nsio n oflegal righ ts islow evenwhenpresented tohigh-functioningindividualsunder idea l conditions(e.g.•caution presented sentence-by-sentencein written format.ina low stress situation).Inaddition. individuals withcognitive deficits (e.g.•mentalillness.Jntellectual disabilities) appear to be particularlyat risk for misunderstandingtheirlegalrights as deiiveredthrough potice cautions .
Morerecently.astudy byMoo re and Gagnier(2008)explored the eomprehcnsion ofa right-to- silencecaution using a sample of university students(n=93).Participants werepresented witheitherastandardsilencecautionorone with minor modifications designedtoincreasecompr ehension.The cautionswere presentedorallyin their entirety via a videorecording.and comprehensionofthecautionswas then assessedvia free
recall.Result s showe d nodifferenceincomprehension between cautions with the
participantsshowed full understandin g oftheinfo rmation inthecautions.lnadd ition.
15%of participantsdid not corre ctl y explainanyof the contentofthe caution.
A study by Eastwoodand Snoo k (2009)exam ined comprehensionofbotharight- to-silenceand right-to-legalcounselcautionusingasampleof universit y students(IJ=
56).Each caution was firstpresented orally in itsentirety.followedbYits presentationin asentence-by-sentenc ewritten format,and participantswere asked to record their understandin gof the presented information.For thesilence caution.when presented orally in itsentirety.only4%displayedfullcomprehension and 13%unde rstood over half oflhcca ution.Similarly,only7%displayedfullcomprehensionofthe legal counsel
presentedinsentence-by-sentence writtenformat,48%ofparticipants displayed full comprehensionand 63%understoodover halfof theinformation in the silence caution .A similarincrease wasseen for thelegalcounselcaution. with 32%of participants displaying full comprehensionand75%understandin gmorethanhalfofthe cauti on.
The consistentfinding from thestudies reviewed above is that people strugg le to comprehend their legalrights asdelivered thro ugh police cautions.Whencaulions were prese ntedastheywouldbe inan actualpoliceinterview(i.e.,orallyintheirentiret y), peoplerare ly fullyunderstoodthe inform ation in thecautions-withave rage comprehension levelso fren fallingb elo w 50%.Perfonna nce did typically increasewhen
cautionswere presented ina mannerdesigned to maximize comprehcnsion(i.e.•sente nce- by-sent encewritten forma t),however comprehension levelsremained wellbelow 100%.
Thiswasfoundacross awidevarietyofpopulations,rangingfrom policeoffi cersto individuals withmentalimpairments.However.thislack of comprehensionwas shown to
be greater for vulnerablepopulations.whichare overrcpresentcdincriminal populat ion s (O'Co nnelletal.,2005:Rogers.Harrison ,Hazelwood etal.,2(07).This suggeststhai thc vast majorityofindividualsfa cinga policei nterviewdo notfu lly understand theirrights.
andarethcreforc arcunable to eitherproperlyexerciseorvalidlywaive their rights.The current mismatch betweentherequirementof fullunderstandingby thccourtsandthe observed lack ofcomprehen sionhighli ghts aclearneed10fixthis important problem.
1.3Com p rehens ion of Orally.DeliveredInform ation
Thccomprchcnsionofpo lice cautions.andorally·dcliveredinformationin generaI.i nvolvesthree basicco mponents-the personse nding the message.the person receivin gthe message. and the message itself. Anydifficult ies encounte red with these three componentscanultimately leadto diminishedcomprehension.For example.the sendermay deliverthe message too quickly. the receiver may notproperlyattend to thc message.o r the messagei tselfmaybeoverlycomplex.PsychologicaI research on these
three compo nentsisrcviewcdinorder to identifypotentialexplanarionsfor.nndsolutions to.the currcntlack of caution comprchension.Althoughthe sender and receiver components mayimpactcomprehensioninreal-worldsettings.theydo notappeartobe able to fullyexplain the lack ofcomprehensionseenin prev iouspolicecautionrcsearch,
Therefo re,the purpose of the current project is to focus on the message componentof the process(i.e.•the police caution).and usefindings from the psycho!ogical literatureto improve comprehension by altering thestructure and content of Canadianpolice cautions.
In the case of police cautions.the first step in thecomprehension process involves a police interviewer ti.e..the sender) orally delivering the rnessageOne basicrscnder"
variablethathas been shown to impactcomprehension is the speed at which the message
is delivered. Research suggeststhat the upperrange of acceptab Ie speechrates is between 150 and 200 words perminute:withcomprehension levelsdropping offsharp lywhen speech rates exceedthe uppcrlimilof this range (see CarverI982; Jesterand Travers 1966).At least onestudy thatlooked atactualpolice interviewsrevealedthatpolice interviewers frequentlyexceed this ratewhen deliveringthe caulion- in some cases even reach ing 300 wpm(Snooket al., 2010).Inaddilionto speed.the messagemust also be delivered clearl y andaudibly.Variables suchasunfumiliar accerus.lowered volume.
cornpcting noise. andso oncan potentiall y decreasethe audib leness and clarityof the message.thus negativel y impacti ngcomprehension(Rubi n.1987).
Thesecondstep in the cautioncomprehensionprocess involves theintervicwce (i.e.•thereceiver)hearingandproccssingthemessage.lnorde r tocomprehendthe message.thereceiver mustfirstattend to the message and then retain and rehearse it while processing the message'smeaning (seeNeath&Surprenant.2003).There are many potential factors thatcouldinterfere with attention and rehearsalprocesses. sucb as distraclersintheenvironmentdivertingattentionfromthemessage .With regards to
policeintervie ws. the uncertaint y te.g.•unknown length o fin terview)andlackofcontrol (e.g..inability toleave) faced by interviewees in a situationwhe re muchis at stakecan create highlevels of stressandanx iety (Irv ing&Hilgendorf.19 80 ).This stress has the potential to impact interviewees'abi lity tou nde rstandandact upontheir legalrights (see Gudjonsson.2003).Vulnerablepeoplesuchasthose withmenta ldeficits(e.g.. lowlQ.
learn ing disab ilities) arealsooverre presented inoffenderpopulations.andthese individua lswouldpresuma blyhaveheight eneddifficult ies ina tte ndingto and processing the legalinform ation incautions.Inadditio n.man y individualswitho ut deficitsmay undergopolice interv iewswith temporaril y reducedmentalstates(e.g.,into xicated.
Thefinal component ofthecomprehensionprocessisthemessageitself(i.e.•the police caution).Messagevariablessuch aslength,sentencecomplc xi ty,wording,ovcrall readinglevel.andcomplexity ofthe legalprinciplesthem selves canall pot en tiall yimpact comprehens ion. Len gthymessagescanexceedanindividual'sability toretainthe message in workingmemory (Baddeley. 1994).Theuseof lingui sticall y complex sentences (e.g.•mu ltiplesubo rd inate clauses)andinfreque ntorunfamiliarword s can reducecomp rehensio naswell.Inadd ition.evenifthemessageis composcdin a simplistic man ner. theunderl yinglegalprincipl es conta ined incautionsmay stillbe too difficult to understandfor the majority of ind ividuals.
Althoughsendervariablesmay impactcomprehensionin real-worldsettings.they arenot ableto explainthe lack ofco mprehen sion seenin previous cautionstudies.For
exam ple,inthesestudies the cautionistypicallypresent ed slow Iy andcl early in ordert o maximize comprehens ion(e.g.• Clare et al., 1998; Eastwood&Snook, 2(09).Therefore the message was sentinarelativel y constantand idealmanner, which givesthese sender variab leslimitedopportu nity to impac tcomprehens ion.Furthermorc.non-verbulsender variablesthat may impact comprehension inreal-world settings(e.g.. intimidatingpolice intervie wer)arenot typically present in laborator y-based cautionstudies.A lthough sendervariab lesarenotoftenexplicitly recorded in caut ioncomprehensionstudies(e.g.•
speedatwhichcautionwas delivered ),itisdoubt ful thattheycanaccountfor the consistent lowlevels of comprehension.
Rcceiver variablesmaypartially explainthelack ofcaution comprehension .M any of the studiesused samples of peoplewithvariousmental andcognitivedeflcits. und comprehension was extremelylow for these individuals(e.g..Gudjonsson&Clare. 1994;
O'Conn elletal.,2005).However . comprehe nsionwasalso low with highlyed ucatedand experiencedsamplessuchasuniversitystudents and policeofficers(e.g.cClareetal., 1998; Eastwood&Snook. 2009). The cautionswerealsotypica llypresenledinvery controlledand non-threateningenviron me nts,which suggeststhatthestresspresentin aCluali nterviewsettingswasunlikelytobeafactori n theses tudiesandthatdistractcrs were unlikely tobe presen t during presentatio nof thecautio n.With regards to memory . many ofthe studiespresented thecautionsorallyin thei rentirety.whichcould taxthe ability of workingmemory and leadto decreased comprehension. How ever, even when the cautionswereprese ntedina manner that shouldhclpalleviatethe press ureon
memoryfunctions(i.e..sentence-by-sentencewrittenformat),comprehensionlevelswere
stillwell below100%.Taken together,this suggests that receiver variablesalso do not fully explainthe observed lack of comprehension.
Ilappears that the message variable may accounl for much of the observed lack of caution comprehension.Researchers have argued thattypical police cautionsare grammatica llyandlinguisticall y complex.and often appea rto be constructed to satisfy legal requirementsratherthan to ensurecomprehensio n(Cooke&Philip. 1998:G ibbons.
2(01).Forexamp le.researchfrom the U.S.has revealedthatmany Miral/tlawarnings containcomplexsentencestructure.containanumber of infrequ ent and difficult words.
and have overall readin glevels atahigh schoollevel orgreatertkogers.Harrison, Shuman.ctal.,2007; Rogers ,Hazelwood,Sewell,Harrison.&Shuman.200 8).
Rescarchersinthe U.K.h avealsor aised concern s aboutt he complcxityo flh e right-to- silencecaution.asthe subordinate clauses and unfamili arword s and phrases contained in the cautionarelikelytohamper comprehensio n(Fennere tal.,2002;Kurzon,1996).
Similarconcernsabout thecomplexnatureof police cautio ns havebeenraisedin Australiaaswell(G ibbons.200 1).T hecons istemfinding regard ingthecomplexstmcture of cautions suggests that the message variablemay accountform uch of the observedlack of comprehension.
Thepurposeofthecurrentprojectwastoi ncrea~ecomprehensionbyanal yzing and altering the complexityof Canadianpolice cautions.The decision to focus on the
messagevariable(i.e.• the caution)wasbasedon twomajor reasons.First.the researchto datein the field hasdemonstratedthateven relativelyhigh-functi oning individualsunder ideal conditions struggleto comprehend cauti on sfully. Thissugges ts that the cauti ons themselvesare relativelyincomprehensible.a suggest io nthat is supported by research demonstratingthe complexstructureof man y cautio ns. Alteringthecautions to make themmore comprehensiblewouldappear to be the first step towardsincreasingcaution comprehension.Theseco nd reasonrelatesto the natureof themess age variable. In contrastto the firsttwo variab les,which are dynamic.the messa gevariableis static.That is.senderandreceiver variablesareconstantlychangingandaretypicall y outsidethe researche r'sor practitione r'scontro l,while theco ntentofthe message can remain cons istentandcontro lled. Therefore.simplify ing the structureofcautionstoincrease comprehe ns ibilitywouldappearto bethemostdirectandeffecti vewayto cnsure co mprehensionacross a rangeof indiv idualsandsituatio ns.Althoughthescndcr and receiver variab lesundoubtedlyhave an impactinactua lpolice interview situatio ns.and researchis needed to better understand theseimpacts. thecomprehe nsibi lityof the cautio ns themselves(i.e.•the message)first needs to be improvedbefore consideringthe potential impact of the other two variab les.
Cha pte r2:Stu dy I
As mentio nedin chapterI. one reason offeredto explain the poor comprehension of police cautions pertains to the overlycomplexcontent and structu reof the cautions (seeFenner et al.,2(02). For example. the complexi tyofthe Notice toDeta inedPerso ns in EnglandandWales was assessed using the Flesch Formula (Flesch. (94 8). whichuses sentencelength and syllablecountto producea score for a givenpiece of text ranging from 0 (very difficult)to100 (very easy).Gudjonsso ne tal.,(1992)foundtheFlesch scorefor the Noticewas56.whichis considered"fairlydifficult".Researchers have also arguedtha tcomprehe nsio nofthe caut ionportionof theNoticemaybe redu ccd asit conta ins legalterm sthat arerarelyfound in typ ical speec hor haveadiffere nt meanin g within a legalcontext (e.g.•record.defen ce;Fenne r etal.,2(02 ).Furtherm ore.the second and thirdsentenc es are relatively lengthyandcontain multiple embedded clau ses (e.g.•
joi ncdor bcgun by()r.if.~io.and. lhat.wJll'n.andbUl), which mayalso impedc comprehe nsio n(Shephe rd&Mortim er.1995).The Scottis hcautio n hasalsobee n criticizedforconta iningdiffic ultwords and len gth y sentenceswithmultiple clauscs (Cooke&Philip .(99 8).Inaddi tio n.Gibbons(1990)analyzedcautio nsfromAustralia and foundthem tobe gramm atica llycomplexandcontain legal terminologyas well.
Althoughthecautionsinthesestudieswere nota lwaysana lyzedi nasystematic fashion.
theconsistent message is thatthestruc tureof cautionsmayinterfere with people'sability toco mprehend the informationcontainedin the cautions.
In the U.S.,researchershavestudiedthe complexityofMiranda warningsina moresyste maticfashion through the use of variousreadabilit ymeasures.ln oneo fthe firstofsuchstudies,Greenfield,Doughert y,Jackson,Podboy,andZimmerman(2001) analyzed thegrammaticalcomplexity of 21 Miranda warningsbeing used inNewJersey.
Theyusedthe Flesch-Kincaid(FK)readab ilitymeasure ,which usessentencelengthand averagenumberofsyllablesper word toindicatethe levcl of educationneeded to comprehendapassage oftext (Flesch,1950).Gree nfieldandcolleaguesfound that the Miranda warningswerewritten,onaverage. ata 7thgradelevel ,and rangedfrom4th
grade allthe wayup tosecond-yearcollegeeducation levels. Similarly,Helm s'(2003) analysisof 53Mirand awarnings from throughout theUnitedStatesfoundthata7th gradeeducationlevel would berequired tounderstand thewarnings.Alaterstudyby Helms (2007)examinedthe individual sectionsof 56 adult Miranda warnings,andfound thatthe FKscores forthesectionsranged from3rd grade to 9thgradereadin glevels.
In themost comprehensive study ofMirandawarnings.Rogers.Harrison, Shuma n, etal.'s(2007) analysisof 560uniqueMiranda warningsshowedsubstantial variabilityinwarning length and readin g complexity.The length ofthewam ingsvari ed from34 to 227 words(averagewordlength=93),withthemajorityexceeding the amou ntof infonna tion that can beprocessed adequa tely inworking memory(see Baddeley,1994).They alsofound thatFKscores ranged from a3rdgradelevelto requiringpost-college education.Morerecently,Rogersand his colleagues(2008) analyzedanadditiona l385warningsandreplicatedtheir pastfindings onword lengthand
readin gcomplexit ylevels.In addition toword lengthand FKscores.fhey also unalyzed thecautionsusingtheGrarnmatikcomputerprogramto assesssentencecomplexityand measuredthe extent to which the cautions containeddifficult and infrequent words.
Result s showed that the majorityofwarningshad a relativelyhighlevelofsentence complex ity andoften contained low frequencyword s(e.g.,indigent,stipulating) and difficult words( e.g..coerce.renounce;scc Rogers,2 008.f orov erviewo fresearch on Mi rall dllcomprchension).The underlyingassumptionof thisresearch isthatbecause cautions contain a numberofcomplexelements (e.g.,difficultwords.complex
sentences ),the y are difficult toc omprehend;thisass umptiona ppears to besupported by the researchon cauti on compreh ension( e.g,Grisso,1981;Eastwood&Snook,2009).
2.1Study 1
Theconcerns outlined by Rogers and his colleagues regardingthe complex itya nd subsequent lackofcomprehensionof Mirandawarnings are directlyrelevanttoCanada.
Toreiterate. severalstudies havedemon strated an apparentlackofcompr ehen sion of Canadian police cautions (Eastwood& Snook, 2009; Moore & Gagnier.2008) . Todate, howe ver.noresearchhas examined thecomplexity ofcautions currentlybein gusedby Canadian police orga nizations.In orderto reducecomplexity.and presum abl yincre ase thecomprehensibility of Miranda warnings, Rogerset al.(2008) recomm endedfour criteriathat they should meet:(a)Havea Flesch-K incaidreadin glevelofS6.0,(b) have a sentence complexity rating of:S40 on Grammatik,(c)avoid difficult words(~10'" grade readin glevel) , and (d) avoidinfrequent words «1occurrenceperlmillion word s).
Rogers,Harrison,Shuman,et al.(2007) alsorecommendedthat warningsshould not exceed 75 wordsinlength.The aforeme ntionedcut-off levelsforthe fivereadability measure screatefive criteria uponwh ichto assess the complexityof police cautions.
In Study I,thereading complexityof Canadianpolice cautions wasmeasuredby utilizingthefive criteriarecommend edby Rogers,Harrison, Shuman,et al. (2007)and Rogersctal.(2008).Th esem easuresw erecho senbecau sctheyprovideasystcmatic and
concrete wayofassessingcomplexity. Furthermore,they subsumethe majority of concemsraisedbyresearcher soutsideofthe U.S.as discus sedabove(e.g.• complex sentences,Iegal terrninology).
2.2.1Sample.Policecautioncards, documentingright-to-silenceand right-to- legalcounsel, wererequestcdfrom the 86Canadian policeorganizations( see www.safecanada.ca for aco mplete listof organizations).One federal.2 provincial.and
35 municipal/re gionalpolice organizations respondedto therequest(response rate= 44.2%). A totalof3 8 Englishversionsof the right-to-silcncccaution and38English versions of the right-to -legalcounselcautionwereobtained.Each participatingpolice organi zationprovided a copyof both cautions.A total of 12 (responserate
=
50%) cautions wereobtained fromBritish Columbia,10 (83%)from Alberta,4 (40%)from Saskatchewan,4 (33%)fromManitoba,28 (33%)from Ontario,4 (33%)from Quebec,2 (100% ) from Prince Edward Island,2 (33%)from NewBrunswick, 6 (75%)from Nova Scotia,2 (100%)from Newfoundlandand Labrador,and 2 (100%)from thefederalagency.Combining the silence and legalcounselcautions resultedin a total of Zf
2.2.2Complexityana lysis.Allcautionsweretypedinto a wordprocesso rby both the authorandanother research er andcompared for accuracy.Anytypographical discre panciesbetweenthe two entrieswere resolved priorto analysis.Thenu mbcrof syllablcs.words. and sentences pcr passage were calculatedusingReadabilityPlus (2008).In 55of the 76 cautions.therewas a bl:mkspace forapolice offi certo insertthe type of criminalchargeor reason for the detention.To ensure a conserv ative rneasureof complexity.the blankspace was replacedwith the one syllableword va't.Thctclephone numbers that wereincluded in13of the76 cautions(17%)were convertedfrom figures towords.Giventhcpossibility thatpo liceorganizatio nsin differentjurisdic tio nsmay use identicalcautions.the contentand wording ofallobtainedcautionswere compurcd again stone another.Results showedthat 19 of the38right-to-silence caulions(50%) were unique and25 of the38 (64%)legal counselcautionswereu nique.Subsequent analyses were conductedonthe unique cautions .
The complex ityof each caut ionwasassessed in the followingways:
I.Fle.,ch-KiIlCClid(FK).TheFKformulaestimatesthe gradelevelncededfor comprehcnsionofapassagcoflcxt(sccFlcsch.1950)'.Thcformula.whichuscs sentcnce length and averagenumber ofsyllablesper word,pred ictsthegradelevel at which
2The exactformula for ca!culatingthe FKscoreo f adocumentis:FK =(0 .39 x average numberofwordsusedpersentence;ASL) +( 11.8xaveragc numbcrofsyllables pcr word;ASW)-15.59.
individualsin thatgrade wouldunderstand75%ofthe informalionin a particu larpassage of text (seeDuBay.2(04).For example.an FKscoreof6 fora passage0ftext indicates that individuals with a 60hgrade reading ability should be able tocomprehendatleast 75%
of the information contained in that passage of text. This measurehas been deemed a reliablemeasure of readingcomprehension(Paasche-O rlow, Taylor.&Brancati, 2(03).
2.Grammatik sentencecomplexity.Grammatik is a programcontained in Corel WordPerfectsoftware thatprovidesa measure of sentencecomplex ity.Thecomplexity score is derivedfrorn the numberof words and clausesinsent ences (seeRogers etal., 2(08). Scorescan range from0to100.with increasing scores correspo ndingto increasing sentencecomplexi ty.
J.Word ollolysis. Worda nalysisconsislsofanalyz ing the(a) frequency level of eachunique word contain edin the cautions, (b)difficultylevelofeachuniqu eword contained inthecautions,and(c)thenumber of wordsineachcaution. Eachword from eachsilenceand lega!coun sel cautionwas entered into a ce llina Microsoft Excel sprcadshcet. Thelist of words wassortedalphabetica llyandall redundantwordswere removed. Thisprocess produced 187 uniquewords. Thefrequency levelof eachword wasdeterminedby using two word frequencyguides.onefrom the U.S.(Zeno, Ivens.
Millard .&Duvvuri, 1995) andonefrom Britain (Leech. Rayson.&Wilson. 2(01).A wordwas classified as infrequentifatleast one of the two guidesindicatedthatthe word occurredlessthanonceineverymillionwords.Thedifficultylevelwasdeterminedby calculating the approximate grade levelneeded10understandeach unique word (see Dale
&O'Rourke,1981, for details on estimatingworddifficulty).Forwordswith more than onedefinitio n.thegrade level thatcorresponded tothedefinitionof the word containedi n thecautionwasused . For example.for the word"right", thedefinit ionpertainingtolegal guara ntees wasused.as oppose d to other definitionsreferringtodirectionality,being
2.3.1 Right-to-silen ce.Table2.\containsthe result s for eachunique right-to- silence caution for each ofthe readabilitymeasures.As canbe seen,79%(11=15) of the cautionsreachedan accep tableFKscore(i.e.•:S6.0).The averageFKscore for ther ight- to-silencecautionswas 5.39(SD =1.10).The FKscoresranged from 4.0ofor the Lethbridge RegionalPoliceService and BloodTribePol ice Service cautionsto 8.40 for
Allcautions met theacceptablecut-off forsentence complexity(i.e..S:40). The average Grammat ikscore was 21.16(SD=5.90) ,withscores rangi ngfrom14 (Bridgewa terPoliceServiceetal.groupingand theBlood Tribe Police Service) to 36 for
Thirty-seve npercent(II=7) ofthe cautions didnot containanydifficultwords (i.e.,2:10th grade).'Theaverage numher ofdifficult wordspercautio nwas 0.68 (SD=
0.58,Range: 0 - 2). Thecautionwith the most difficult wordswas from the Winnipeg Police Service. Onl y the caut ion fromtheM ontrealP ol ice Service com ained al ow frequencyword(i.e.,occurring<l/million). All but onecautio nmet the acceptablecut- off forword length (i.e.,<75 words).The average wordlength was 38.47 (SD=11.89) and rangedfrom 17 wordsforthe British Columbiacautio n to 76 wordsforthe Gatineau
Atotal of 7 (37%)of the 19 cautions met all5 of thecriteria,7 (37%)met 4 of the 5 criteria, 4(21%)met3 of thecriteria,and I(5%)met2 ofthecriteria,
2,3,2Ri~h t.to-le~aleou nsel,Table 2.2 containsthescores foreach unique right- to-legalcounselcaution for eachreadabilitymeasure.Thirty-six percenttueSj ofthc cautionsmettheacceptableFKscore(~6.0).The averageFKscore was 6.45 (SD
=
l.32),wi thscores ranging from4.30 fortheBridgewaterPolice ServicelYorkRegiona l Policecautions to 8.50 for thecautions usedbythe Calgary Pol ice Serviceandthe Royal NewfoundlandConstabulary(RNC).
Sixty percent(II= 15) of thecautionsdidnotexceedtheacceptabIelevel of
z z z z z z z
~
sentence complexity(SO40).The average Grammatikscore was 38.76(SD =8.51).with scores rangingfrom25 forthe Broc kvillePol ice ServiceINorth BayP oliceService to59
Allof lhecautionsconlaineddifficu ltwords(~lOthgrade. see footnote 3).The average numberof difficultwordspercaulionwas 2.68(SD =0.85.Range: 2-6) . TheRNC cautioncontainedthegreatest number of difficultwords.whileIIcautionstied for the least amountofdifficultwords .Eighty-fourpercen tof the cautions contained low frequencywords«I/million).The average number oflow frequencywordspercaulion was1.04(SD = 0.61.Range:0-2).Fivecautionstiedforthegreatest number oflow frequency word s.and 4 cautionstied fortheleast numberof lowfrequency wo rds.
Twent ypercent(II=5)of thecautionscontained lessthan 75 words.Theavera geword length of theright-to -legalcounselcautions was 100.52(SD=27.18).and rangedfrom28
Approx imately32%(11=8)ofthe 25 caulions did notmeet any of the eritcria recomme ndedbyRogers .Harrison. Shuman.et al.(2007) and Rogerset al,(2008).Only 3(12%)cautions met 3 of the 5criteria. 10(40%)met2. and 4 (16%)melIof the
Thepurpose of thisstudywas to measurethereadingcornplexityof Canadian police cautions. In line with Rogers,Harrison.Shuman.et al.' s (2007) andRogers eral.' s (200 8) findingswithMiranda warnings.substantialvariation in the measures ofreading
complexi tywas found.Using the cut-offcriteriaadvocate dbyRogersand his colleag ues foreachof thcfive reada bi lity measures. themajorit y of silencecautions were not found to be overly complex.butmostofthelegal counselcautionswere0ver lycomplex.Thcse lindingssuggesl thalCanadianoffendersmayslrugg lelounders lan dtheirright-to-le gal
The large differencesin reading complexityof bothtypes of caut ions across poli ce organizatio nsare not overlysurprisingbecausepolicing inCanada isprimarily a provincia l respon sibili ty.Thatis.manyorgan izatio ns wouldhavedevelo pedtheir caul ion s indepe nde ntlyofotherorganizatio ns. Furtherm ore. jhetaskofdevelo pingthe policecautio ns istypicall ytherespons ibilit y of eachorganization'slegaldepartm ent.
wherealawyer would interpr etThe Charter andrelevant caselaw to decideon the wordingofthecautions.Such a practice raises question sabout proceduralfaim css regard ing the ad ministration of right s in theCanad ian justice system becau se suspects in someregions of the country maybe affo rded betterprotect ion of theirrightsthan suspe cts in other region s.Althou ghitis recogn ized thattheadoptiono fnationa lstan dardsis nota straigh tforwardprocess.thedev elopment ofa standa rdize dpolicecaution would ap pear to be a positivestep forwar d.
The readingcomplex ityanalysissuggeststha tCanadianpoliceorg anizations ought to revise theirlegal counsel cautio nssignificant lyand. to alesser extent.their silence cautions.Everyattemp tshouldbe made to reduce words thataredifficultto understand (e.g.• retain) and are not usedoften ineverydaycomm unications(e.g.•
detained) .The majorityof cautions should beshor tened to matchwhatwekno w about the capacityof working mem or y (Badde ley&Hitch.1994 ).It is also reco mmendedthatthe
sentences in thecautions be sho rte nedandmultiple-syllablewords be avoided.Itis expec ted tha tsuchrevis ionswou ldallow Canad ianoffenders.whotypicallyhavelo w literacylevel andhighfrequencyofleam ingdisabilities(Bell• Conrad.&Suppa.19 84 ; Muirhead&Rhodes.1998).tobetterunderst andthe rightsconta inedinthesecautions.
Theserevisionswouldalso likelyhelp implement therecommendation madeinR.v.
Bartle (1994)tha tpolicecautions be as clearas possib le.Overall•thecurre ntstudy
supportsRogersetal.ts(2008)conclus ionstha tmoreemphas is needsto be place don designingcautionstha t usesimpledeclarativestatementsand avaid legalistic phrases.
Indication sfrom the readin g complexityanalysisabo utwhethe rornot peop le
shouldbe expected tobeable tounderstandtheirright s are mixed.On the one hand.the lowlevel of readi ngcomplex ity forthe right-to-silence cautiondo esnot correspo ndto
researchsho wing tha t peop ledonotunderstand tha tcautionfully (Eastwood&Snook.
2009;Moore&Gagn ier.200 8).On the otherhand. thefactthat non e0fth e right-to-Iegal counselcautionsmctall5readability criteriacorresponds toEastwood'sandSnook's (200 9)findin gsthat itis rarefor people tounderstandthe rightscontai ned ina right-to- legal counselcaution. These mixed findi ngsraisethe questio nafwhe the ror notrcading
complex ityis avalid predictor of Iistcn ing comprehension.Thepurposeof Study 2 wasto testthe valid ityofthe criter iausedformeasurin g complex ityin Study Iaspred icto rsof listenin g com prehe nsion.
Cha pte r3: Study 2
In Study 1.five readability measureswereusedtoassess thecomplexity of Canadian police cautions.It wasassumed thatasthereading complexity ofacaution increased. comprehensibility woulddecrease.Despitethewides pread usage ofrcadability mcasurc s.fiowever, studiesassessingtheir abilitytopredict comprehension o f material have produced mixed results (see Duffy.1985) .Forexample.Rogers•Harr ison.
Hazelwoodet al,(2007) demonstrated that Aesch-Kincaid (FK) scores can help predict accuratelythe needed readingcomprehensionlevelofMirandawarnings.However.
ut eithcr al6thor7thgrade readinglevelproduceds imilarlevels o f co mprehens ion.
Simiiarco ncemsregard ingt heo therrea dabilitymcasuresused in StudyI have been raised as well.Forexample.simply replacingdifficult wordswithsimplersynonyms and shorteningsentencestoreducetheir complexityalsodocsnot appear to greatlyincrease comprehens ion(Duffy&Kabance,1982). Thus.althoughthemeasuresrecommendedby Rogersand his colleagues are widelyused andwouldintuitively appear to increase comprehension.empiricalresearchsuggests that their actual impact on comprehension maybeminimal.
Aseco nd.and oftenoverlookedconcern when examiningcaution comprehension.
isth atpe oplefacinganinterrogationaret ypicaJlyrequiredtocomprehcndpolice cautions thatare delivered10them orall y (Snook etal.,2010).The measures used in Studyl, however.pertain primarily to readingcomplexit y,Althoughlisteningandreading
comprehensionhavetraditionally beenseen as identicalprocesses (Horowitz&Samuels.
1985). and reading comprehensiondoes appear to be moderately related to listening comprehension(Savage.200J).other researchershave arguedthat theyshouldbeseen as distinctmodalilieswilhdifferingfunctionalandstructuralproperties(Rub in. 1987; Rubin
&Rafoth,1986). Thus. readabilitymeasures may not be usefulwhen consideringthe
comprehensibilityof orally-deliveredpassagesof text.
These mixedconclusionsraise thequestio nof whetherornotan orally-delivered caution thatmeetstheabove fivecomplexitycriteriawouldbe better understood thanone thatdoes notmeetthosecriter ia. InStudy2.the valid ityofreading complexitymeasures in predict inglistening comprehensionwastested.
3. 1.1Sa m ple.Particip ant s (N=121) wereundergradu atepsychol ogy students from Mem orial University.The sampleconsistedof42 men(M",= 20.50.SD= 3.08) and79 women(M" ,=20.3 5.SD= 2.71).The averageyearofstudy forparticipants was
3.1.2:\ la ter ials.The right-to-silencc was derivedfromSec tion7ofTheCharter, whichstates:"Everyone hastherightlolife.libertyandsecurityoflhepersonandthe right not tobedeprived thereofexcept in accord ancewith the princip lesoffundamental juslicc".ln Canadian case law,the righH o-s ilence means thatsliSpecISand accused pcrsons mustbe given a freec ho ice about whether or not tos peak ro the police(sce R.v.
Hebert.1990 ). AllhoughCanadiancourt rulingsindicate that the police cannotinterfere
with this right(e.g.,offer promisesor threats),they arenot obli gated10inform detainees oftheirright-to-silencepriortoqueslioning(seeR.v.PopadopO/l/os.2006:R.v. Smith.
Theright-to-legalcounseliscontainedinSection10 (b)of The Charter and states:
"Everyone has the righton arrestor detention toretain and instruct counsel without dela y and lobe informed of that right".As clarified insubsequent casesR.v.Bart/e (1994) and R.v.Brydges (1990) ,alegal counselcaulionmustinciudelhefoliowing four requirements:(a) notify detaineesofthcirright to retain and instructcounselwithout dclay,(b) infonnationabout3ccesstocounselfrceofchargewhcre an accusedmeets prescribedfinancialcriteriaset up by provincia l Legal Aid ("Legal Aid")plans,(c) informationaboutaccess 10 immediate.althoughtemporarylegaladvice irrespective of financia lstatus("dutycounse l").and(d)basic informa tionabout how to access available services that provide free.prelimina rylegal advice.
Althoughpolice organizationstend to deliverboth cautionsto detai nceste.g., Snook ct al.,2009),caselaw states that they are obligatedto informdetaincesonly of theirSection 10(b) rights(seeR.v.Papodopo/l/o.,, 2006).As discussedinR.v.lfebert (1990 ), oneo f the primary purposes of informing individuals of the ir right-lo-Iegal counsel is10provide themwith the ability togel legal advice regarding their rights.with the mostirnponantof theserightsbeingthe right-to-silence,Given that policeare not obligated to deliver right-to-silencecautionstodetainees.and the lackofguidance
regardingthe contentof thesecautions.testsoflisteningcomprehension in thecurrent studyfocusedon right-to-legalcounselcautions.
Eachof lhe2 5unique legaicolinse ica lilionsfromSludy Iwasassessedto determinc ifth c y containedth e fourlcgalr cqllircm cnls olltlincd ahove;17mel allof the requirements(see Table3.1).In order to testthe validityof Rogersandcolleaguescut-off crileriainpredictin glisteningcomprehension.the17cautions were first organi zed according to howmanyof the fivecriteria were met.Thecautions meetingthemost and
fewest criteriawere thenselected(as ment ioned in StudyI.none0fthecaut ionsmetall ofthe criteria).As there was a six-wayticincautions meetingthe mostcriteria (i.e..2) and aseven-way tieincautionsthat met thefewest criteria(i.e.•0).thecautions that tied were ranked -ord eredusing their rawscores onthe readabilitymeasures (see Table2.2).
Thetwo cautions that ranked.onaverage.ashighest and lowestwere from the Brockville Police ServicclNorthB ayP ol ice Scrvicc (highestscore.or simplcst caution )and thc CalgaryPolice Service(lowest score.or mostcomplex caution).
Althoughthe BrockvillePoliceService/NorthBay Pol iceService caution wasthe
simplestof thecautions.itstill mCIonly 2of the criteria.To perfonnamorethorou ghtest ofthecriteria.athird caution that melall four legalrequiremenIsandall 5 ofthecriteria was created.The createdcaution(Created) had aFKscore of 4.0.hadaGrammatik sco re of 25.hadno low frequency words.had no difficultwords.and contai ned 57words,
j
I f
""iJ!
:;
]
>- ~z
~
g'" ~ E J
~ §
f l
E~Z z
.~~ i
s~J
~
:s
~ ~ i 1
1 ~ ~ j
i
~~
°EE l I
~~ J j I ] ~ f ] ~ 1 ~
1fE
J;
~
1;1"E
~
i .2 ~
~81 a
1:'ilI
1!'~ ~ !
-5; ~
§g
~ ~ ~
IMPRO VI NG THECO MPRE HENSIONOF CANADIAN POLI C E CAUTIONS
By includinga third caution.the stim u liconsistedofa caution thatmetnone of the criteria (Calgary).a cautionthatmet approximatelyhalf of the criteria (Brockvil le/North Bay).and a cautionthat met all of the criteria (Created).The thre e cautionsarc listed bclowinorderofcomp lexity.Thefirstsentenceinthefirsttwocautionsbelowis incompletebecause it may have increasedthe complexityof thecautionsbyinserting the name of an arbitrary criminalcharge.
Most Complex(Calgary) lam arrestingyou.You have the right to retain andinstruct a lawyerwithoutdelay.Thismeans that beforewe proceedwithollr investigationyoumay call£Ill)'lawyer)'011wish oralawyer froma free legaladvicej·erv ice immedilltely./fyouwlInttocallalllwyerfro mafree leKaladv iceservice, weu"ill provide)' ouw itha telephmll'lllUl)'o uc a flcll lI lltoll-free llumherforimmedillte leglllll dvice.lfyouwis h toco lltllcti llJ)' otherl mvye r.atelephollell nd telephonehookswillbeprovidedtoyou.If yOll are charged withlllJoffence, youma)' applytoLegalAid for assistance.Do you understand:Doyou want to call a freeluwyer or any
LeastComplex(BrockviIIeJNorth Bay) lam arr esting yoII.lt is my dllty to infon1, yoll that you ha \'e the right to retain and instructcounsel without delay.YOIlhave the right to telephone any lawyeryouwish.YOlIlllsoha\'etherighttofreeaddcefrom
llleXlllllidlawyer./fyolfll rechll rgedwilhl llloffellce.yolf11Jllyapply10
IheLegl//AidP/I//Ijorl/ssisll//Ice.Te/epho/lel/lIIl/ber/.81JO.265-0.J5/wi//
putyou incontact with a Legol AidDuty Counsel Lawyer forfree legal adviceright'lOW.Do youunderstand?Do youwish 10 calla lawyerIlow?
You Clln hire andtalk 10YOllrownlawyerriglu now. YOIIcanalso xe1j reelegaladv ice j rom a go vem llle flllllwyer righl no w. /f yoliwanllhis
jrel· ad vice[willgil'e yoillhe numberlO clllI. lfyouarechargedwittta ('rimeyoucllnupply fora freelawyertohelp with...ourcase.
A VisualBas icprogram was designedusingVisualBasic 5 software.This
programconsisted of3different forms.eachofwhich wasdispla yed on acomputer monit orin sequenc e.Thefirstformconsistedof instruction sregardinghowtocomplete theexpe riment.The second form consistedofavideo ofan individ ualr eading one o fthc threelegal counse lcautio ns(i.e..Calgary, Brock ville/NorthBay. orCreated)in its entirety. Thespeedofdelivery for the three cautio ns was162 words/minutefor Calgary, 180 words/minutefor Brock vilieiN orthBay, and204words/minuteforCrea ted:whic h shouldbe conduciveto oralcomprehension(seeCarver1982:Jester&Travers1966).
Thethirdform instructed participantsto describe,in as much detail as possible, thei r unders tandingofthe caution they heard. Locatedbelow theinstruct ions was atext box for participants totypetheir answers.All answers that were typedintothe textboxes were savedautomatically inaMicrosoft\Vord document.
