Slashdot Mirror


Brain-Scan Lie Detection Rejected By Brooklyn Court

blair1q writes "A judge in Brooklyn has excluded Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) lie-detector evidence from a trial there. However, the decision will not set a precedent, as it was made without even conducting a hearing on the method's validity, but on the principle, argued by the defense, that 'juries are supposed to decide the credibility of the witness, and fMRI lie detection, even if it could be proven completely accurate, infringes on that right.' That principle can be tested in later hearings, such as one scheduled for May 13, 2010, in Tennessee; in this case, the defense wants to use fMRI evidence it has already collected to prove its client is innocent. fMRI has been shown to be 76-90% accurate. That number seems significantly larger than the rate of false convictions."

6 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. The statistical value of "resonable dobut" = 0.1% by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Supreme Court has given science the legal definition that a "beyond a reasonable doubt" equates to 99.9% certainty... a system that is wrong 10% of the time or more needs at to at least be much times more accurate before it's going to be trusted. You're only allowed one blooper in 1000 by this standard. Nice tech, but it's not there yet.

  2. Lie Detection by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Informative

    Calling these devices "lie detectors" is misleading at best. Until they invent a machine that can travel back in time and compare the suspect's claims against the facts, there can be no lie detectors. All a lie detector can do is make visible certain physiological responses that are more or less associated with lying. While sometimes these responses are explained by the fact that the person is lying, humans are complex enough that it should never be considered a trustworthy mechanism as far as the law is concerned. Juries are easily influenced by apparently scientific evidence, but lie detection is a questionable science at best and could prejudice juries against the defendant.

    There's an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit that does a good job of putting the lie to the lie detector.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  3. Re:Because they are unreliable. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wrong again. Polygraphs can only tell when the subject is showing physical signs of stress through pulse, blood ox, temperature readings, and galvanic skin response.

    Maybe I am stressed, I had a bad burrito and I'm terrified that the next fart won't be silent or dry.

    An FMRI "lie detector" only shows you what parts of the brain are active on the assumption that certain parts lighting up mean someone is thinking too much and thus making it up.

    Maybe my brain IS active, that one girl had some really nice breasts and I wonder what they look like underneath all that clothing...

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  4. Re:It is better than a jury of Bobs by linzeal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well perhaps we need a check on the jury's seemingly endlessly ability to be lured into convicting innocent people out of motley assortment of prejudices and 'gut-feelings'. You can't tell me the fact that across the world minority conviction rates are higher for the same crimes because of anything but bigotry. Don't even start with the idea of ever person having the right to appeal, which can take years if not decades to overturn a wrongful conviction.

    If this technology can get to 9X.x% accuracy in the near future I would like it to at least be used to prevent people from having to go to trial or have charges brought against them in the first place. District Attorneys have far too much power right now to prosecute people charge them with 5 crimes that can result in years in prison and 10's pf thousands of dollars for petty crimes like vandalism and than have them plea down to 30 days in jail and a 1000 dollar fine.

    My friend in his last year of college was walking home from his art studio down town with all of his art supplies in a backpack near a bank downtown. A rent a cop came out of nowhere and started accusing him of vandalizing the property and started manhandling him and moments later the real cops showed up and arrested him. Why, well he had marker pens in his backpack that were the same type used to write anti-capitalist graffiti on the bank's ATM and someone had superglued the deposit door shut. He was held over night was forced to call his parents for bail, had all of his art supplies confiscated, charged with 3 misdemeanors that could of landed him in jail for 2 years, fought all the charges with a private attorney his parents paid for, lost all the charges got 6 months in jail and a 3500 dollar fine, appealed the conviction, found evidence that another bank in the area after he was arrested had the same graffiti done to it while he was with his parents 100 miles away, went to trial and the judge spent 3 days grilling him on his political activities before overturning the convictions. He got back his art bag, everything was either broken in half or torn and it smelled like feet because it had been locked up with his shoes for over a year at this point. He told me it took over 25,000 dollars to prove he was innocent and if he did not have well off parents he would of been in jail.

    Public defenders in this country on average handle over 500 cases a year whereas a DA handles half that, something has to change or more and more of us are going to be going to jail as innocent men. In NYC the average case load of a public defender is 720 cases a year.

  5. Relevant Conduct..ever hear of it? by droopus · · Score: 5, Informative

    While we're on the subject of the "law..."

    Anyone ever hear of relevant conduct as the feds consider it? Basically it means that your custody can be affected by behavior for which the charges have been dismissed, or even charges for which you were acquitted.

    I kid you not. Here's a true scenario:

    A man gets caught with five grams of crack. (FIve year mandatory minimum in the feds, until the crack/powder disparity is corrected.) That's five years for about a sugar packet of rock. But when he is arrested,the cop says" hey you look like the guy that hosed down that McDonald's with an AK47, killing 35 schoolkids!"

    Of course, you aren't, you go to trial, and after 30 seconds of deliberation, the jury acquits you of the mass murder charge. But you still go away for the crack.

    Here's the kicker: when you go to prison, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) considers the murders "relevant conduct" and sends you to a very nasty pen, puts extreme violence on your record, and puts a Public Safety Factor on you, because of the "relevant conduct"...of which you were acquitted. Due process? Hah!!

    Don't believe me?

    Want the official Government position?

    The US justice system is a fucking travesty, and unfortunately, you don't realize that till you're neck deep in it.

    Be careful out there.

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."