fMRI in a court of law?

No Gravatar

As you know, lie detectors are not valid in courts of law.  And, as I’ve written, “the law is not science”; we know that there are more than subtle issues at stake.  Just because you didn’t lie doesn’t mean you are telling the truth.  You may not know the true facts or you could just be mistaken.

But, we do know that fMRI is capable to “reading” our brains, letting observers know what is being activated when we do certain things.  Like telling lies.  Now, there’s a group in California (MedForLaw) that purports to have but one aim:  To use medical and life science technologies to modernize legal systems and reduce corporate and governmental corruption.  My problem- the organization is not registered in California, even though it is based there.   But, it is involved in one case- in Maryland!

A man is tried for murder.  He was convicted- in spite of his continuous protestations that he is innocent.  The verdict is put aside.  He is on trial again. How to prove he’s innocent?  (I am NOT taking sides- I am presenting Gary Smith’s point of view, which may or may not be the “truth”.)

Is Gary Smith guilty?  Or not?

In 2006, Army Ranger Gary Smith may have killed his roommate, Michael McQueen.  Smith claims it was the suicide of his friend.  As a result of his 2008 trial, he was not convicted of murder, but was convicted of other charges (“depraved second degree murder”) related to the case and could have served up to 50 years in prison.  After serving four of those years, the highest court in Maryland (an appeals court) threw out the case, which is why there is a new trial.

So, a Montgomery County (this is suburban DC) court has been examining the use of these new technologies as part of Smith’s defense.  The use of fMRI scans were presented as evidence that Gary Smith has been telling the truth that he did not kill McQueen.  Three days of pre-trial testimony.  But, many researchers claimed that the fMRI can be fooled, by moving a finger or toe (imperceptibly) that lowers the accuracy to 33% or so.

In the end, the judge found the technology interesting, but worried that the fMRI could, indeed, be fooled.  As such, these fMRI results will not be included in the trial.

But, I suspect it’s just a matter of time before it is…Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A.

 

 

A verdict in the case was afforded yesterday (19 September 2012), long after I wrote this piece (but when it got published).  Smith was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.  This was after 12 days of trial and with a deeply divided jury- which led to a choice between a compromise verdict or a hung jury.  They relied on gut feeling more than evidence!  An appeal is in the offing- so this issue may come up again- real soon (since the judge ruled it was not admissible- and the appeals court could allow it)!
Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
Share

18 thoughts on “fMRI in a court of law?”

  1. Your first paragraph has something I know I will quote you on. I loved it, and I love this article. We’ve been searching for ages for some fool proof way to know whether we are being told the truth. From body language to drugs, and now perhaps this. It is an interesting technology, and yet I think as hard as we work on it I wonder if we really want something like that. For all the good it will do in criminal cases, I would think a better use of it would be political races. 😉 Give me a technology that can be used during political debates and I will work on funding it myself.
    Lisa Brandel recently posted..Midnight Angel by Lisa Brandel

    1. Me, too, Lisa.
      As much as I dislike surreptitious video, I do find it interesting when folks “drop their drawers” in private- clearly enunciating the positions we KNOW they have and won’t “cop to” in public…

      Roy

    1. David:
      It is not clear how much this device can be fooled. And, yes, the fMRI is a manipulated image. But, being the technocrat that I am, I believe the encoding can be effected to disallow “fooling”… We need evidence about the claimed “toe tapping”, too!

    1. One always hopes to never be falsely accused. But, then, again, you live in Britain, where court cases are not effected at the drop of a feather- unless they are libel cases, which are inimically winnable on your side of the pond, Gordon…

  2. Science & law are and will forever be intertwined. I, personally, applaud the use of science-based technology as it has exonerated many innocent people of heinous crimes. DNA testing, which can now detect even the most minute traces, has freed several men/women who have spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit. As we know, witnesses are often mistaken when identifying perpetrators…so integrating science & technology into the law takes much of the guess work & skewed perceptions out of play.
    Lynn Brown recently posted..Work From Home

  3. Hi Roy!
    you described such instrument to prove truth. so i think there is no need of evidence in the court if judge have this instrument.i think this should be used in politics so let see how it works in the political field.i like it.
    anshul recently posted..Inventory Management Software

Comments are closed.