Cross-Examining the Brain: A Legal Analysis of Neural Imaging for Credibility Impeachment

Charles N. W. Keckler
{"title":"Cross-Examining the Brain: A Legal Analysis of Neural Imaging for Credibility Impeachment","authors":"Charles N. W. Keckler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.667601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The last decade has seen remarkable process in understanding ongoing psychological processes at the neurobiological level, progress that has been driven technologically by the spread of functional neuroimaging devices, especially magnetic resonance imaging, that have become the research tools of a theoretically sophisticated cognitive neuroscience. As this research turns to specification of the mental processes involved in interpersonal deception, the potential evidentiary use of material produced by devices for detecting deception, long stymied by the conceptual and legal limitations of the polygraph, must be re-examined. Although studies in this area are preliminary, and I conclude they have not yet satisfied the foundational requirements for the admissibility of scientific evidence, the potential for use - particularly as a devastating impeachment threat to encourage factual veracity - is a real one that the legal profession should seek to foster through structuring the correct incentives and rules for admissibility. In particular, neuroscience has articulated basic memory processes to a sufficient degree that contemporaneously neuroimaged witnesses would be unable to feign ignorance of a familiar item (or to claim knowledge of something unfamiliar). The brain implementation of actual lies and deceit more generally, is of greater complexity and variability. Nevertheless, the research project to elucidate them is conceptually sound, and the law cannot afford to stand apart from what may ultimately constitute profound progress in a fundamental problem of adjudication.","PeriodicalId":273284,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Procedure eJournal","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.667601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

The last decade has seen remarkable process in understanding ongoing psychological processes at the neurobiological level, progress that has been driven technologically by the spread of functional neuroimaging devices, especially magnetic resonance imaging, that have become the research tools of a theoretically sophisticated cognitive neuroscience. As this research turns to specification of the mental processes involved in interpersonal deception, the potential evidentiary use of material produced by devices for detecting deception, long stymied by the conceptual and legal limitations of the polygraph, must be re-examined. Although studies in this area are preliminary, and I conclude they have not yet satisfied the foundational requirements for the admissibility of scientific evidence, the potential for use - particularly as a devastating impeachment threat to encourage factual veracity - is a real one that the legal profession should seek to foster through structuring the correct incentives and rules for admissibility. In particular, neuroscience has articulated basic memory processes to a sufficient degree that contemporaneously neuroimaged witnesses would be unable to feign ignorance of a familiar item (or to claim knowledge of something unfamiliar). The brain implementation of actual lies and deceit more generally, is of greater complexity and variability. Nevertheless, the research project to elucidate them is conceptually sound, and the law cannot afford to stand apart from what may ultimately constitute profound progress in a fundamental problem of adjudication.
交叉检查大脑:可信度弹劾的神经成像法律分析
在过去的十年里,我们看到了在神经生物学水平上对正在进行的心理过程的理解取得了显著的进展,这一进展是由功能性神经成像设备的传播在技术上推动的,尤其是磁共振成像,它已经成为理论上复杂的认知神经科学的研究工具。随着这项研究转向人际欺骗中涉及的心理过程的具体说明,由于测谎仪在概念和法律上的限制,测谎设备产生的材料的潜在证据使用必须重新审查。虽然这一领域的研究是初步的,而且我得出结论,它们还没有满足科学证据可采性的基本要求,但使用的潜力——特别是作为鼓励事实真实性的毁灭性弹劾威胁——是一个真实的潜力,法律专业应该通过构建正确的可采性激励和规则来寻求促进。特别是,神经科学已经充分阐明了基本的记忆过程,使得同时进行神经成像的目击者无法假装对熟悉的事物一无所知(或声称对不熟悉的事物有所了解)。大脑对真实的谎言和欺骗的执行更普遍,具有更大的复杂性和可变性。然而,阐明这些问题的研究项目在概念上是合理的,法律不能与可能最终构成判决这一基本问题的深刻进展分开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信