Each year, an estimated 318,000 defendants who do not comprehend the Miranda warnings waive their rights and provide incriminating evidence without the protection of counsel (Rogers, 2008), which make Miranda-related competencies one of the most pervasive pretrial issues. A wide range of issues could potentially affect an individual's capacity to provide a knowing and intelligent waiver. Previous Miranda research has focused narrowly on the effects of cognitive and developmental factors. The current study added to the Miranda literature by examining the impact of two highly prevalent conditions found in correctional populations, attention deficits and substance abuse. Adult defendants in custody (N = 118) were evaluated within 36 hours of arrest in order to assess both chronic psychological disorders and situational variables. Results indicate that attention deficits have a significant impact on defendants' ability to provide a knowing Miranda waiver, whereas substance use profoundly affected their reasoning about Miranda waiver decisions. This study represents the first systematic investigation of the effect of transient mental states on Miranda-related abilities with criminal defendants. Important implications for forensic practice are addressed.

L’action en justice intentée en matière de Responsabilité Sociale de l’Entreprise révèle certaines limites lorsque les justiciables parties prenantes souhaitent protéger leurs intérêts. Par une juridicisation du droit de la RSE à mi-chemin entre la soft law et la hard law, l’action en justice des parties prenantes pourrait être véritablement efficiente. Dès lors, les mécanismes processuels traditionnels sont insuffisants lorsqu’il s’agit d’agir en justice dans ce domaine. C’est notamment à travers l’intérêt et la qualité à agir en justice des parties prenantes que des aménagements de la procédure civile vont être véritablement nécessaires. Des améliorations supplémentaires telles que l’instauration d’une action de groupe élargie au domaine de la RSE et davantage américanisée permettrait notamment aux parties prenantes d’assurer leur défense grâce à un dispositif nouveau très efficace. De plus et par la voie extrajudiciaire des modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges, les acteurs de la RSE peuvent également décider de porter le différend qui les oppose hors de la connaissance du juge étatique. Ce choix d’action peut être révélateur d’une préférence pour une justice davantage négociée. Ces propositions semblent être indispensables à la mise en œuvre d’une action en justice efficace en matière de RSE. Les parties prenantes pourront alors agir en justice de manière inédite afin de parachever leur protection. Les nécessités juridiques et sociales actuelles semblent ainsi faire évoluer le droit afin que les parties prenantes puissent bénéficier d’une action en justice considérée comme un véritable contre-pouvoir face à l’entreprise. / Legal actions brought to court concerning Corporate Social Responsability reveal certain limits when litigants’ stakeholders wish to protect their interests. The Corporate Social Responsability law falls between soft law and hard law. Going through CSR law’s judicalization could really make litigation of stakeholders efficient. Usual processual mechanisms are insufficient once an action has to be brought to court dealing with CSR. The civil procedure will need some changes, specifically relating to legal standing and stakeholder interest. Some added improvement would allow stakeholders to ensure their legal defence thanks to this new and efficient legal device. The setting up of a collective action including a CSR with more resemblance to the American one would represent one such improvement. Moreover, stakeholders can decide to settle the matter out-of-court with an extrajudicial approach, using alternative dispute resolution. This choice could amount to a more negotiated inflection of justice. These proposals seem to be necessary to settle an efficient legal action concerning CSR. In this way stakeholders will be able to litigate in a whole new way in order to consolidate their protection. Current legal and social needs seem to make the law evolve so that stakeholders benefit from a legal action which can be considered as a real countervailing power against a corporation.