fMRI Lie Detection Hearing Ended, Decision Still to Come

[CuttingEdge100]

fMRI Lie Detection Hearing Ended, Decision Still to Come
May 14,2010

URL: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/fmri-lie-detection-hearing-ends-.html

A federal court in Tennessee heard arguments yesterday and today on whether lie detection technology based on fMRI scans of brain activity should be admitted in a criminal case involving a psychologist accused of defrauding Medicare. Magistrate Judge Tu Pham presided over the pretrial hearing and could issue his report anytime between now and 1 June, when the trial begins.

The hearing provided the most formal legal test yet of whether fMRI lie detection meets the so-called Daubert standard for admitting evidence in federal court, and as such it could set an important precedent.

What's your opinion on this matter?

Personally I believe that this poses a substantial danger in that if it is proven sufficiently reliable, the accused could not refuse the brain-scan unlike a polygraph. With the direction civil-rights have taken over the past decade, I think the last thing we need is the thought police.


CuttingEdge100
BTW: Since I posted a response on the site, I did not plagiarize what was said, as I was the one who said it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There is absolutely no way you could be forced to take one of these. It would be a clear Fifth Amendment violation. So, I think that concern is unfounded.

I looked around and can't seem to find any compelling science regarding the reliability of fMRI for lie detection. Beyond that, the legal questions are likely to persist longer than any questions of scientific accuracy. Looks like it's just one company (Cephos) trying to build a cottage industry out of this technology by having it made admissible for lie detection.

 

[Yoda]

Give me a break. We don't understand nearly enough about the brain to tell if someone is lying from an MRI. If this judge rules this kind of pseudoscience admissible he should shoot himself.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The whole thing just looks like a marketing ploy by Cephos, honestly.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Robert Maxwell,

I doubt it would be a clear fifth amendment violation...

 

[Lindley]

Don't be silly, of course it would. A lie detector can't function if you refuse to answer a question at all.

In both cases referenced in the article, they were attempting to submit the test results as evidence of the subject's innocence anyway.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, you can't be forced to answer questions--period. It's enshrined in the Constitution for crying out loud. I think it's BS to allow them to be submitted to prove someone's innocence, too.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

Yes, but if a person while in the fMRI chamber is asked if they killed somebody and they know they did it, the machine would know they did it. So even if the person doesn't want to answer it, just the fact that they know they did it would reveal that they did it.


Robert Maxwell,

You can't be forced to testify against yourself or be forced to incriminate yourself, true, but by being forced to give a DNA sample one can argue that by giving it you'd be forced to incriminate yourself, yet the police are allowed to take DNA samples with a warrant with or without the consent of the subject.

I'm not for fMRI's being used, but I know that argument would come up to counter any attempt at claiming it would violate the 5th Amendment

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Lindley,

Yes, but if a person while in the fMRI chamber is asked if they killed somebody and they know they did it, the machine would know they did it. So even if the person doesn't want to answer it, just the fact that they know they did it would reveal that they did it.

That wouldn't even be remotely legal. Police are not allowed to interrogate you under false pretenses like that.

Robert Maxwell,

You can't be forced to testify against yourself or be forced to incriminate yourself, true, but by being forced to give a DNA sample one can argue that by giving it you'd be forced to incriminate yourself, yet the police are allowed to take DNA samples with a warrant with or without the consent of the subject.

I'm not for fMRI's being used, but I know that argument would come up to counter any attempt at claiming it would violate the 5th Amendment

Being compelled to provide DNA requires a warrant. It only works because there is something physical for the police to seize from you. With an fMRI, it's a procedure, not something the cops can just take, therefore it is not something they could get a warrant for.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Robert Maxwell,

How would it be a false pretense (the interrogation)?

And being compelled to get in the fMRI might require a warrant too, but it will probably be granted if it's sufficiently accurate...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Give me a break. We don't understand nearly enough about the brain to tell if someone is lying from an MRI. If this judge rules this kind of pseudoscience admissible he should shoot himself.

The test (if this is the same one I read about) relies on the triggering of pattern recognition portions of the brain. It's a well studied field, and the pattern recognition response IS truly autonomic. Even sociopaths cannot "fake out" the pattern response.

However, it WOULD be a Fifth Amendment violation to require such a test. I have no problem with it being used on a voluntary basis, if it is certified.

 

[StolenThunder]

I imagine it would be inappropriate simply for the possibility of detecting incidental serious pathology.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

A thought: The original purpose of the 5th Amendment was to exclude the possibility of the police torturing a person into a false confession. The "state of the art" in interrrogation at the time was the whip, the thumbscrew, etc.

This procedure is painless and harmless. There is no violence or threat of violence involved. Assuming the accuracy of the results is substantiated, should it be proscribed by an amendment designed to prevent the torture of suspects?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

A thought: The original purpose of the 5th Amendment was to exclude the possibility of the police torturing a person into a false confession. The "state of the art" in interrrogation at the time was the whip, the thumbscrew, etc.

This procedure is painless and harmless. There is no violence or threat of violence involved. Assuming the accuracy of the results is substantiated, should it be proscribed by an amendment designed to prevent the torture of suspects?

The actual text of the amendment is pretty clear:

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...

That's the key part, right there. It doesn't mention the means or anything else. You cannot be forced to witness against yourself--period. I see no way that making someone take a lie detector test would ever pass Constitutional muster.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

A thought: The original purpose of the 5th Amendment was to exclude the possibility of the police torturing a person into a false confession. The "state of the art" in interrrogation at the time was the whip, the thumbscrew, etc.

This procedure is painless and harmless. There is no violence or threat of violence involved. Assuming the accuracy of the results is substantiated, should it be proscribed by an amendment designed to prevent the torture of suspects?

The actual text of the amendment is pretty clear:

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...

That's the key part, right there. It doesn't mention the means or anything else. You cannot be forced to witness against yourself--period. I see no way that making someone take a lie detector test would ever pass Constitutional muster.

I agree as it was written. Note the word "compelled". The FF could not imagine a NON-toturous method of interrogation that would prevent false confessions.

Like so many other areas, the FF did not anticipate the ways that technology would ultimately change society.

Do we take the Amendments at their literal word, or do we interpret them in accordance with the spirit OF those words, the intent with which they were written?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

A thought: The original purpose of the 5th Amendment was to exclude the possibility of the police torturing a person into a false confession. The "state of the art" in interrrogation at the time was the whip, the thumbscrew, etc.

This procedure is painless and harmless. There is no violence or threat of violence involved. Assuming the accuracy of the results is substantiated, should it be proscribed by an amendment designed to prevent the torture of suspects?

The actual text of the amendment is pretty clear:

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...

That's the key part, right there. It doesn't mention the means or anything else. You cannot be forced to witness against yourself--period. I see no way that making someone take a lie detector test would ever pass Constitutional muster.

I agree as it was written. Note the word "compelled". The FF could not imagine a NON-toturous method of interrogation that would prevent false confessions.

Like so many other areas, the FF did not anticipate the ways that technology would ultimately change society.

Do we take the Amendments at their literal word, or do we interpret them in accordance with the spirit OF those words, the intent with which they were written?

I think we'll do whatever is most convenient for us at the time. However, it would be pretty hard to worm around the word "compelled," unless SCOTUS really does go back to the original meaning and determines that, as long as you aren't "tortured" into a confession, anything else is legit. So, two cops could sedate you, tie you down, and push you into an fMRI, wait for you to wake up, then start asking questions.

I can scarcely imagine the level of outrage that would cause, though. If society has gotten to the point where we'd find that remotely acceptable, we're doomed anyway.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Yeah, but being forced to take a DNA test if you're guilty could be considered being forced to incriminate yourself. Yet DNA tests are allowed.

That same argument could be used for fMRI cases too, I'm afraid.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I think this whole paranoid fear of the police is getting out of hand. Everyone's afraid that this is going to somehow lead to the return of the rubber hose and dangling lightbulb.

Why are we denying Law Enforcement new and potentially effective tools to solve crime and punish the guilty?

Everyone yells and screams when the police don't keep crime under control. Yet that same everyone yells and screams about "my rights" and ties police up in needless proceedures and red tape to "protect" those "rights". As it stands, they have the proverbial one hand and one leg tied behind their backs and a lawyer looking over both shoulders.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Darkwing Duck,

There's a distrust of law enforcement and our government due to the past eight or nine years.

The ability to read minds is so dangerous to individual liberty, and so fraught with the potential for abuse that law enforcement officials need to have their hands tied to keep them from using this stuff. There are many other ways to enforce the laws without having to perform such invasive methods -- the last thing we need are thought police.


CuttingEdge100
"Freedom of speech is not just the ability to say what you wish, it's the ability to say what you wish and not be punished or imprisoned for what you said; freedom of thought is not just the freedom to be able to think what you wish, but the ability to remain free and to not be punished for what you think/thought."

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Darkwing Duck,

The ability to read minds is so dangerous to individual liberty, and so fraught with the potential for abuse that law enforcement officials need to have their hands tied to keep them from using this stuff. There are many other ways to enforce the laws without having to perform such invasive methods -- the last thing we need are thought police.

Context context context.

No one is talking about "thought police". No one is talking about punishing you for the mere content of your thoughts. We are talking about the interrogation of suspected criminals using a non-invasive, painless proceedure to determine whether they are telling the truth or lying to the authorities about specific criminal acts.