Log In | Register
Defense attorneys are for the first time submitting a next-generation lie-detection test as evidence in court.
MRI Lie Detection to Get First Day in Court
Seeded on Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:26 AM EDT
Article Source: Wired News- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (7)
"This is the first time in human history that anybody has been able to tell if someone else is lying," Huizenga said.
This is not the first time in human history that patently absurd claims have been made by somebody with a product for sale.
- 5 votes
#1 - Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:34 AM EDTIt won't likely be the last either.
All such "technologies" ignore:
- The human capacity for rationalization and self deception.
- The psychopath's aberrant response.
The continual use of such flawed technologies by law enforcement and attorneys is depressing.
- 5 votes
To be admitted into court, any technique has to be "generally accepted" within the scientific community.
But the big question is …. will it be accepted by the jurors?
Which I do not think it will because their first thoughts about it would most probably be: ….. “GEEEZE, ……. they could use that sucker on me.”
- 4 votes
#2 - Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:16 AM EDTWill the cost of this make it something only well-heeled defendants can take advantage of?
- 3 votes
#3 - Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:03 AM EDTThis is an excellent invention for the reason that we do have something called the Fifth Amendment, which means that you can't be forced to testify against yourself. Perhaps a lot of people posting here haven't heard of that.
The point is the defense is using the fMRI technique and the defendant is voluntarily taking the test for a very good reason--in many sex cases in America there typically is no physical evidence at all. The whole charge is just one person's word against another's. If all you have to defend yourself against a hideous accusation is your own testimony, you would probably very much appreciate having a device available that can prove you are being truthful.
DNA testing has freed many thousands of people wrongly suspected of doing crimes in America, but DNA isn't always available. What DNA testing has done is show how many juries believe an eyewitness identification or somebody's spiteful accusation and pack an innocent person off to prison.
The question of cost is a good one. What is the cost of sending an innocent person to prison for 25 years? I have a dog in this fight, BTW. My book WHY THE INNOCENT PLEAD GUILTY AND THE GUILTY GO FREE details how frequently defendants can be beaten down by the threats that police interrogators and prosecutors use and forced to plead guilty to charges they did not commit. This happens a lot more than you think and it happens precisely because after awhile an accused person starts thinking that no one is ever going to believe them.
- 4 votes
#4 - Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:20 AM EDTDon't forget Obstruction of Justice prosecution. There is nothing to keep you from being convicted of Obstruction of Justice even though you committed no crime if the prosecution can convince a jury that your actions in presenting an MRI testimony hindered law enforcement or the prosecution from obtaining a conviction.
Our system of so called justice is seriously unjust.
- 4 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
