Should brain scans be admissible as legal evidence?

Perhaps in the future a brain scan will be accurate enughf that it can be used as reliable evidence but there is till too much we dont know on how the brain works.

Brain scan evidence should not be allowed unless the subject waives their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Evidence needs to be tangible, solid. The rule of law, in this country anyway, is innocent until proven guilty. Proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, that means the guilty get off sometimes - but it’s better than the alternatives. Such brain scans are imprecise and can only add innuendo, not real evidence. Let us not restart the salem witch trials in our zeal to catch a few extra criminals.

I’m in the minority this time. DNA, blood, fingerprints, lie detectors,etc. are all allowed in evidence, but with other evidence, timelines, and circumstances. Why should brain scans be any different if applied like the other allowable factors?

Silly earthlings…. your puny brains are already being scanned… every time you use an I-Pod or a cell phone or go on Facebook. That is why I wear a tin-foil skull cap under my toupe. Has anyone seen my polar bear, I am really in the need of a massage.

Will we get to the point that I can be fired for sexual harassment for thinking “that is a pretty woman”?

Not until the technology can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what the brain scan indicates is actually the truth, and that the accuracy is flawless.

fMRI and related imaging technologies are not going to be any more conclusive then polygraph testing and/or (bogus) voice stress analyzers are. The root of the problem is that these sensory technologies can record neural activity, but not readily define what the causative agent is for that detected activity. For this reason alone, fMRI, polygraphs and (bogus) voice stress analyzers are not (and should not) be admissible in a court of law.

Just as lie-detector tests are not usually admissible in court because of their high fallibility rate (both positive and negative), brain scans should not be admissible, at least until we have more experience interpreting them. It is one thing to state with certainty that an “agitated” appearing brain scan represents extreme emotion for the subject when presented with a scenario, and quite another to state that this means the subject is guilty of committing the offense presented in the scenario. I agree with Phil.

I think the technology and understanding needed for this to work is a long ways away from now. I don’t think it will look like a colored blob overlayed onto an image of a persons brain. What happens if a suspect has multiple personalities? What if a suspect has an over active imagination? What if the story sounds just like a movie or book the suspect read?

In order for a “brain scan” to work, we would need the technology that could create movies from brain signals. That technology would reverse engineer signals to create a movie from someones memory and not their imagination. It would have to distinguish between the two. This could end up being a massive study in the name of justice that is only usable as an advanced marketing tool.

I dont think our feeble version of this “brain scan” should be allowable as evidence. I also disagree with using findings from such studies for market research.

It’s an interesting concept but I think there will have to be more study to prove how reliable it is. Today I see it being twisted either way.

I’m with Phil as well. I have Very vivid ‘memories’ of events that were dreams. Are You going to convict me of something based on that? It will show up on that ‘brain scan’ just as clearly as a regular memory.

CW is on the track, but I think we are so far from that level of clarity it’s mere vaporware at this point. Probably Decades from reality.

And even then, We have the 5th Amendment, people!!!
This would blow right through that protective right we all have.

I must strongly argue against this, and polygraphs are not much better.
It shows stress, but what stress? Is he guilty or afraid of you making him seem guilty? Big difference the polygraph can’t determine.

A brain scan that cannot detect when a memory is false or real, that cannot detect when someone is simply mistaken about what they saw, is not providing useful forensic evidence. If it’s not valid evidence, it should not be admissable.

No, NEVER! Until the memory can be played back like a movie, (And I hope that time never comes!) it is still only someone else’s interpretation.

The only thing a brain scan should be used for in a court of law is to determine if the person being scanned is alive or dead.

not yet - not until it is established on a scientific footing - and, hence, probably never

and the first brains to be exposed to the public should be
both Clinton’s (if you can find them)
Jo Biden’s
Al Gore’s
J Jackson
Charles Shumer

Brain scan alone, NO. Brain scan and lie detector, maybe. A person may create a memory or can be “Brain washed” into believing something that is false. Ever tried convincing a paranoid person that the thing they are afraid of does not exist? To them it is tangible and real, try fighting that in court. So even if we could actually see someones memory, that does not mean it is an actual or factual event we are observing. I guess that for that much we would have to allow dreams and nightmares as court evidence too.

Once again……….a meaningless question……. I still cannot understand why at least 50% of NASA resources are not working on alternate energy sources/solutions. But, no, we have much more important things to “ponder”. And even equally surprising is that you actually get serious replies……….

Brain scan already are considered admissible under some circumstances; as in isn’t that effectively what we now have when we determine a “persistent vegatative state”.
If a doctor “pulls the plug” or “disconnects the feeding tube” on a body with no brain activity (a living corpse), they normally don’t face criminal charges. If there is “active” brain activity, as might be demonstrable by fNMR, this would be evidence of possibly wrongful termination of life support.

You’re kidding me, right? Sounds like some perversion created out of 1984…

The human brain is too unreliable as a storage bank. Look at all the false memories that have been reported. Just as hypnotism and testimony from hypnotized witnesses is inadmissible the results are too easily tainted.

Absolutely not! The very nature of this technology makes it too unreliable. The court system is screwed up enough with all the excuse-making psycho-babble that must be dealt with now.