Brain scans admissible in Indian Court

[CaptainChewbacca]

Link

[quote]MUMBAI, India: The new technology is, to its critics, Orwellian. Others view it as a silver bullet against terrorism that could render waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods obsolete. Some scientists predict the end of lying as we know it.

Now, well before any consensus on the technology's readiness, India has become the first country to convict someone of a crime relying on evidence from this controversial machine: a brain scanner that produces images of the human mind in action and is said to reveal signs that a suspect remembers details of the crime in question.

For years, scientists have peered into the brain and sought to identify deception. They have shot infrared beams through liars' heads, placed them in giant magnetic resonance imaging machines and used scanners to track their eyeballs. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States has plowed money into brain-based lie detection in the hope of producing more fruitful counterterrorism investigations.

The technologies, generally regarded as promising but unproved, have yet to be widely accepted as evidence — except in India, where in recent years judges have begun to admit brain scans. But it was only in June, in a murder case in Pune, in Maharashtra State, that a judge explicitly cited a scan as proof that the suspect's brain held "experiential knowledge" about the crime that only the killer could possess, sentencing her to life in prison.

There's a lot more to the article in the link. So, what're your thoughts on this sort of thing becoming accepted in the west? Will it make criminal proceedings push-button affairs? Are brain scans covered by the fifth amendment?

[General Zod]

Not to state the obvious, but how is this any more reliable than prosecuting someone based on lie detector results, exactly?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Not to state the obvious, but how is this any more reliable than prosecuting someone based on lie detector results, exactly?

As I understand it from the article, lie detectors gauge anxiety, while the scanners check the specific parts of the brain the access different kinds of memory, and first-hand experience looks different than someone telling you about it.

p.s. could a mod fix the quote tags?

[General Zod]

As I understand it from the article, lie detectors gauge anxiety, while the scanners check the specific parts of the brain the access different kinds of memory, and first-hand experience looks different than someone telling you about it.

On the other hand, first-hand experiences don't necessarily mean someone did the act. Unless they can tell the difference between "witnessing" and "doing", I'm extremely skeptical here.

[Broomstick]

It is possible for lie detectors to go astray for several reasons:

- since they measure emotional reactions, and certain types of criminal don't have/process emotions in a normal manner such people will not show a response when lying the way other people do. So they can lie, but the detector says they're telling the truth.

- some people are so terrified and anxious when subject to a lie detector test they have the opposite reaction and the machines says they're lying even when they're not.

- it is theoretically possible to train someone through biofeedback to have less of a response, giving either ambiguous or negative results.

Supposedly, brain scans won't have this problem. Supposedly. Because I don't understand all the details I can't say whether that's actual fact or hyperbole on the part of those with a vest interest in brain scans.

[ArmorPierce]

Mythbusters demonstrated that it was possible to beat it it. Don't know about false positives though.

[General Zod]

Supposedly, brain scans won't have this problem. Supposedly. Because I don't understand all the details I can't say whether that's actual fact or hyperbole on the part of those with a vest interest in brain scans.

Right. The lack of details is my biggest issue with using them as evidence. If they're significantly more reliable than lie detectors to the point of having a very small margin of error, I can see them being used as complimentary evidence. Just not a complete replacement for standard investigation work like Chewie suggested.

[Spin Echo]

Mythbusters demonstrated that it was possible to beat it it. Don't know about false positives though.

fMRI or lie detectors?

I'm not an expert on the functional MRI, but the reasoning behind it is that different parts of the brain are used depending on whether a person is telling the truth (recalling a memory) or lying (making something up) and by studying the pattern of brain activation you can tell if a person is telling the truth. Apparently they've even used it to tell apart memories from false memories.

[Lagmonster]

The important distinction is between real and false memories, not to mention the elaboration of real memories. People are very highly prone to 'remembering' events differently over time and eye witness accounts can vary in details from person to person even if both witnessed the same event from the same perspective. Said machine would have to be able to distinguish between the original, gap-filled memory and the embellishments we may 'remember' to fill in said gaps. Let alone what we'd do for the analysis of memories of events we had as children.

[DPDarkPrimus]

So would imagining a murder read the same as remembering committing the act?

Hmm... Hmm...

[Kanastrous]

There's also a system that scans brain activity and can distinguish access patterns which are consistent with bringing up memory (that is, truthful recollection based upon stored information) versus patterns consistent with fabrication (which involve activity in different areas of the brain, presumably where the connections necessary to construct a lie, are processed).

I saw a sixty-second bit on this on some science channel; will see if I can find linkage.

[Kanastrous]

ghetto edit - if the technology is demonstrably reliable, I don't see any objection to admitting its results as evidence. Although I should think that 5th Amendment protections would still apply, and that criminal suspects should have the right to decline the test.

[Lagmonster]

There's also a system that scans brain activity and can distinguish access patterns which are consistent with bringing up memory (that is, truthful recollection based upon stored information) versus patterns consistent with fabrication (which involve activity in different areas of the brain, presumably where the connections necessary to construct a lie, are processed).

I saw a sixty-second bit on this on some science channel; will see if I can find linkage.

I wouldn't frame it in terms of real versus fantasy or even truth versus lie, but as accuracy. How accurate are human memories, particularly in people who are have mental issues to begin with? Or who experience events while on narcotics? Can the machine pluck accuracy out of an inaccurate recollection?

[ArmorPierce]

Mythbusters demonstrated that it was possible to beat it it. Don't know about false positives though.

fMRI or lie detectors?

I believe that it was the fMRI. The asian guy was able to beat it.

[Broomstick]

ghetto edit - if the technology is demonstrably reliable, I don't see any objection to admitting its results as evidence. Although I should think that 5th Amendment protections would still apply, and that criminal suspects should have the right to decline the test.

I don't think India uses the US's 5th amendment. Actually there's probably a lot of countries that don't recognize protection against self-incrimination as a right of any sort.

[Kanastrous]

There's also a system that scans brain activity and can distinguish access patterns which are consistent with bringing up memory (that is, truthful recollection based upon stored information) versus patterns consistent with fabrication (which involve activity in different areas of the brain, presumably where the connections necessary to construct a lie, are processed).

I saw a sixty-second bit on this on some science channel; will see if I can find linkage.

I wouldn't frame it in terms of real versus fantasy or even truth versus lie, but as accuracy. How accurate are human memories, particularly in people who are have mental issues to begin with? Or who experience events while on narcotics? Can the machine pluck accuracy out of an inaccurate recollection?

Remembering the doc I saw, they indicated that there are distinct and recognizable processes that take place in different areas of the brain when one is framing an untruth, than when one is accessing a stored memory.

[Kanastrous]

ghetto edit - if the technology is demonstrably reliable, I don't see any objection to admitting its results as evidence. Although I should think that 5th Amendment protections would still apply, and that criminal suspects should have the right to decline the test.

I don't think India uses the US's 5th amendment. Actually there's probably a lot of countries that don't recognize protection against self-incrimination as a right of any sort.

Yeah, I was thinking about the technology's application, here in the US, should it come to that.

[ArmorPierce]

There's also a system that scans brain activity and can distinguish access patterns which are consistent with bringing up memory (that is, truthful recollection based upon stored information) versus patterns consistent with fabrication (which involve activity in different areas of the brain, presumably where the connections necessary to construct a lie, are processed).

I saw a sixty-second bit on this on some science channel; will see if I can find linkage.

how about recalling a imagination?

[Admiral Valdemar]

how about recalling a imagination?

There is still research being conducted into this. Right now, it's probably useful by virtue of being better than a polygraph and having a rudimentary lie detection capability. There will never be an infallible forensic method, even DNA isn't perfect, but it doesn't mean you have to throw out an fMRI lie detector entirely either.

[Keevan_Colton]

Of course, what happens when you're deliberately thinking about multiple things at once? Some real, some not...and only actually talking about one of them...

[CaptainChewbacca]

Of course, what happens when you're deliberately thinking about multiple things at once? Some real, some not...and only actually talking about one of them...

Splitting your focus is really hard to do, and since they'd be able to see what you were doing, they'd probably make you stop.

[Keevan_Colton]

Of course, what happens when you're deliberately thinking about multiple things at once? Some real, some not...and only actually talking about one of them...

Splitting your focus is really hard to do, and since they'd be able to see what you were doing, they'd probably make you stop.

I dont find it particularly hard, and how do they prove that you're doing it deliberately or even go about an attempt to "make you stop"?

[Archaic`]

Mythbusters demonstrated that it was possible to beat it it. Don't know about false positives though.

From what I remember of that segment, didn't they only prove that it was possible to give an intentional false positive? That's not really beating it, you need to lie and get away with it to do that. They simply said it was plausible to beat a lie detector, but weren't able to do it themselves.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As I understand it from the article, lie detectors gauge anxiety, while the scanners check the specific parts of the brain the access different kinds of memory, and first-hand experience looks different than someone telling you about it.

On the other hand, first-hand experiences don't necessarily mean someone did the act. Unless they can tell the difference between "witnessing" and "doing", I'm extremely skeptical here.

I also have questions about whether it can tell the difference between a memory of an act, or thinking about an act that you did not do.

[General Zod]

I also have questions about whether it can tell the difference between a memory of an act, or thinking about an act that you did not do.

This part I think can be explained by different parts of the brain lighting up when used. The other one I'm not so sure about.