Caleel Harris as Young Anton McCray and Michael K. Williams as Bobby McCray in a scene from Netflix's “When They See Us.” Photo: Atsushi Nishijima/Netflix via AP

With the broadcast of the Netflix series “When They See Us,”  more attention than ever has been focused on juvenile interrogations and more specifically false confessions by youth. At the heart of this issue is the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides us with the right to remain silent when questioned by law enforcement. In 1966 the Supreme Court said in its Miranda decision that this right cannot be waived unless it is determined that someone has done so knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.

Long before the Miranda decision, the court said in Haley v. Ohio that events that “would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens”. In the years since Miranda, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that youth are different from adults and that the nature of those differences means that youth require greater protection under the law. In 2011, the court stated in JDB v North Carolina that youth tend to lack the maturity and sense of responsibility of adults and that they haven't the experience, perspective or judgment necessary to recognize and avoid potentially detrimental choices. And perhaps most significantly the court found that youth are more likely than adults to be influenced by pressure from others.

The court's concerns are well grounded in science. Research tells us that the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain that determines much of an individual's capacity for decision making and the exercise of judgment is not completely developed until the age of 25. This means youth are not yet able to appreciate the long term consequences of decisions that they make, like whether or not to waive their right to remain silent. We also know that youth often lack the cognitive skills necessary to understand the meaning of the warnings they are given by the police.

Alarmingly, those youth who tend to have the most limited cognitive skills and are the most vulnerable are the same youth who are most likely to come into contact with the police and the juvenile justice system. Of additional concern are the inherently stressful nature of a custodial interrogation and the extent to which that stress impairs the youth's already limited level of functioning. The end result is that without professional guidance our most vulnerable youth are being forced to make judgments they are ill-equipped to handle. For these youth, a constitutional right and the protection it is meant to provide are nothing more than an illusion.

But the New York State legislature is now in a position to forcefully address this injustice. The Senate and the Assembly have before them a juvenile interrogation bill that would preclude any waiver by a youth of the right to remain silent without first consulting with an attorney. More than anyone, children and adolescents need the advice of qualified and experienced counsel to help them determine whether or not to waive this right. Admittedly, if the bill passes, law enforcement will extract fewer confessions from youth who are in their custody.

Instead, they will have to rely on other legitimate means of investigation to develop a case. This is a small price to pay to ensure that a constitutional right is not held hostage and rendered meaningless by a preoccupation with obtaining confessions from the most vulnerable among us. We cannot and must not ignore the many lessons to be learned that are highlighted by cases like the Central Park Five. Our children deserve better than that.

Martin Feinman is the director of delinquency training with the Juvenile Rights Practice at The Legal Aid Society.