Slashdot Mirror
Indian Woman Convicted of Murder By Brain Scan
Kaseijin writes "Neuroscientist Champadi Raman Mukundan claims his Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test is so accurate, it can tell whether a person committed or only witnessed an act. In June, an Indian judge agreed, using BEOS to find a woman guilty of killing her former fiancé. Scientific experts are calling the decision 'ridiculous' and 'unconscionable,' protesting that Mukundan's work has not even been peer reviewed. How reliable should a test have to be, when eyewitnesses are notoriously fallible? Does a person have a right to privacy over their own memories, or should society's interest in holding criminals accountable come first?"
is alive and well...
Nope.
At one point to BeOS was considered a potential successor to Mac OS by Apple, after the collapse of the Copland project, but in the end Apple picked NEXTSTEP, supposedly because of two major issues with BeOS. The first was that Be, Inc. was asking too much. The other was that it was unfinished at the time it was under consideration, notably lacking a comprehensive printing system - which, at the time, was a major issue given Apple's success in the DTP market.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"Indian Woman Convicted of Murder By Brain Scan"
My first thought: How do you kill somebody by a brain scan? Maybe they had a piece of metal lodged in their brain that shifted during an MRI.
Ah, but this is just bad editing. It should read "Indian Woman Convicted by Brain Scan of Murder".
Slashdot: amateur editors pretending to be professional.
Not American, but I AM someone whose worked voluntarily helping set up a shelter for battered Indian/Pakistani wives in the UK.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
The summary is a little missleading.
The two states in India that allow it have set up labs were the device was/is being tested, the lack of per review is that the people outside of India do not have full access.
This is the second case where the judge has mentioned the test, the first was against a man. In the first case the judge said that the test was not used as "concluded proof" but that the tests backed the other evidence. In this case the judge include 9 pages on why he used the test results and defense of the system.
As for its use, in India to have the test run on you requires that you volunteer. In the US I would guess it usage would have to meet the same requirements that were setup for lie detectors. A quick search shows that their has been no federal ruling, excluding that lie detectors don't work, so you have some locations where the judge can order a person, some where lie detectors were considered no different from taking a persons fingerprints, to others where they said a person could not be forced.
Women in India have more rights than most other countries I know of.
Google for Article 498a for instance.
You are just a typical ignorant fool who has never travelled outside their own little village.
Honor killings as you have read recently about in the media, did not happen in the same country
Are you claiming that 'honor killings' do not occur in India?
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040113/asp/nation/story_2780541.asp
http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/archives/04_0112_in_wrights.htm
Just like any other technology, now that its available, society has to make sense of how best to use it.
Yes, and that is by throwing it in the heap with all the other pseudo-science and outright quackery.
H. Beam Piper used a brain scanner (veridicator) to verify truth (lie detector) in courts and making statements. They had strict rules on when it could be used and what could be asked. Gutenberg has Little Fuzzy as free text
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
Let's say you're psychic, or a witch, or some other controller of paranormal/supernatural powers. Let's say you're the real deal. What would you gain by stepping into the spotlight and announcing yourself?
Under the Randi Challenge? A million dollars.
You do know that James Randi backed that challenge up with a substantial sum of cash (sorry, I don't remember the amount and am too lazy to go look it up just now).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's $1,000,000. If these fraudsters had any ability, they'd take the cash instead of conning gullible people who have recently lost loved ones.
What's mental is that a jury (or worse, a judge) accepted the result of a new, questionable, unproven technology as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was guilty. (I assume here that the Indian justice system has the same burden of proof as most others.)
India did away with jury trials in 1960. Look up K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra.
2g1c = 2 girls one cup and lemon party = http://lemonparty.org/
India's legal system, like the USA's, is based on the British Common Law system. In it, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It's a miscarriage of justice, even if this technology is ultimately vetted and proven 100% reliable, because right now, the technology is in question.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
You're very welcome to support the anti-paedophile crusade, but shallow perceptions of paedophiles lead to hysterical responses like this.
It won't be long before the UK and US has taken away all of its citizens' freedoms under the guise of "protecting children from paedophiles".
You seem to believe that people should be imprisoned for being attracted to children. Around 25-33% of men are aroused by children*; who is going to pay for that level of imprisonment?
Occurrence of Paedophilia in the General Population
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is a huge difference there.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Actually if you bothered to JFG, to would find that the $1,000,00.00 is in an endownent fund account administered by Golman Sachs, so bar the bank collapsing or it getting embezzeled, the money is real qand is going nowhere.
See http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html for further info
Cultist of the Average Middle-Aged Ones
As far as I can tell, once you already imaginated the lie, and start believe in it then it will be a recollection and indistinguishable from a real memory. Heck, tehre are enough study on memory to show that people make up stuff while recollecting and afterward think what they made up is a real memory.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/021708swiftboat/ is an example of Randi's moving targets to win the money. In this case, the starting point is "Audiophile's can't really hear the difference in cables" and specifying a specific make and model. They then add that the loser pays for all testing costs (do you want to pay for something that later appears to be rigged against you). The maker of said high-end cable decides not to play....audio writer offers to use another make/model of high-end cable...Randi says it has to "approved" by his "advisers". And so on....basically, Randi prefers to name call and rig any test beyond neutrality. He WANTS a negative result versus looking to actually prove.
Paedophilia tends to imply that the children are prepubescent. Sexual attraction to jailbait is called Ephebophilia. Not enough people know this bit of vocabulary.
--Obyron
"Your post, and even the link you provided are missing something extremely important. A definition of "children"."
The term "pedophilic stimuli" is quoted in the article which I linked to, which indicates pre-pubescent children.
The text of the actual study* states:
So the children depicted in the slides were pre-pubescent.
*Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
...the money is real and is going nowhere.
Actually, it is going somewhere. The prize is being discontinued in March of 2010.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
If the person tells the truth, they're recalling the events. If they're lying, they're constructing a scenario in their head. The two would be very distinguishable.
No. Speaking as a researcher working with fMRI in the field of emotional memory, we're not even close to being able to distinguish distinct pathways for truth versus falsehood, or construction of creative scenarios versus recollection of events, even in a normal population. Closest we may be able to get to is what sensory data the subject is creating or constructing, although separating the two modes of sensory stimulation would be impossible.
It's very important to remember, fMRI is a low-sample-size, highly presumptive, mathematically flawed system. We work with it because it is the best we have, not because it is perfect. Any claim that fMRI can "read minds" or determine innocence or guilt is far-fetched at best, and at worst (and in this case) extremely dangerous.
Why would you not do that?!