Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Should Brain Scan Lie Detection Be Used as Evidence in Court?

2/17/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Libby Rozbruch
Libby Rozbruch is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Psychology.


Over the past decade, scientists have been exploring the potential of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as a method for lie detection. fMRI measures small, variable changes in the ratio of oxygenated blood to deoxygenated blood during a particular task or when a particular stimulus is presented. When a specific area of the brain is active, there is a local increase in oxygen-rich blood. In turn, fMRI allows scientists to assess and identify increased activity in brain regions associated with the cognitive processes required for lying. [1] The question is – should information acquired from this type of brain imaging technology be used as evidence in the courtroom?
While the incursion of neuroscience into the legal sphere imposes various negative implications, it could also revolutionize the entire legal system. The traditional lie detection method, the polygraph, measures an individual’s physiological reactions to direct questions. fMRI, however, measures brain activity at the source that gives rise to the skin response, heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration changes registered by the polygraph. [2] fMRI-based lie detection utilizes an objective and more reliable method for truth verification, as its results do not require subjective interpretation.
​

Additionally, fMRI is less susceptible to confounding influences such as anxiety or stress, as these mental states would create their own distinct pattern that is easily distinguishable from that created by a lie or deception. [3] When an fMRI acquires a signal after an individual answers a question, the subsequent brain process measurement can potentially differentiate between an answer’s veracity and its mendacity. [4] In turn, some consider fMRI to be an “unbiased, scientifically-backed way to differentiate a lie from truth telling.” [5] But how reliable is this approach in lie detection?

Modern studies of fMRI-based lie detection often claim that the technology’s accuracy rates are ninety percent or greater. It is important to consider, however, that these studies are conducted in a controlled laboratory setting with willing and reasonably relaxed participants and thus do not reflect the actual conditions of a criminal investigation. [6] In addition, these studies tell us the differences between truths and lies averaged over multiple subjects and trials, but they do not tell us whether the pattern of activation is common with other mental processes or experimental conditions. [7]  

Moreover, if fMRI evidence is permitted in court, it will likely have very persuasive – and perhaps damaging – effects on jurors. A number of studies confirm the idea that individuals tend to be persuaded by the seductive allure of neuroscience and that fMRI possess an “aura of certainty” in the eyes of jurors. These studies raise serious questions concerning jurors’ ability and competency to understand expert scientific testimony. When evidence is highly complex, jurors tend to become confused and base their evaluation of the evidence on heuristic cues – or cognitive shortcuts – that often presume an “implied certainty and authority of science.” [8]

One study conducted by Gurley and Marcus found that participants who were presented with a testimony that was accompanied by a brain scan were nearly twice more likely to render a guilty verdict compared to a testimony that was not accompanied by a brain scan (37% vs. 19%). [9] Another study showed that 75% of participants reached a guilty verdict when presented with fMRI evidence, while 45% of participants reached a guilty verdict when presented with polygraph evidence. [10] These studies highlight how the authority of science and neuroimaging can mislead jurors into believing that the information from these scans is entirely reliable and valid. Of course, progress in the use of fMRI will eventually lead to greater reliability and validity of neuroscience-based lie detection. Nevertheless, even if such technology one day becomes perfectly accurate and unbiased, many would still argue that it constitutes an ethical threat to individual liberties.   

Despite the growing capabilities of neuroscience and technology, the neuroscientific and legal communities have a duty to uphold and safeguard  individuals’ fundamental rights. The Fourth Amendment, which serves to “protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State,” is undoubtedly relevant to this debate. Many would argue that evidence obtained from fMRI-based lie detection violates the Fourth Amendment’s “search and seizure” clause, which protects individuals from overly intrusive searches of their person. [11] In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the court rejected the warrantless search of a suspect’s home using a thermal-imaging device that gathers information about the internal state of a private space without physical intrusion. This can be seen as similar to the way neuroimaging scans obtain information about the internal state of an individual’s mind.   

Brain-scan technologies are improving, but there is still a lot that needs to be considered before allowing them as evidence in the courtroom. Even if this technology one day becomes perfectly reliable and valid, enforcement agencies will need to decide whether or not the needs for justice trump privacy concerns. The thoughts and memories inside our head have always been seen as private; are we ready to relinquish them and allow them to be used as potent information in court?  

[1] “fMRI and Lie Detection.” The Macarthus Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, February 23, 2016. Accessed January 26, 2018. http://www.lawneuro.org/LieDetect.pdf
[2] Amirian, Justin. “Weighing the Admissibility of fMRI Technology Under FRE 403: For the Law, fMRI Changes Everything – and Nothing.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2015. Accessed January 26, 2018. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol41/iss2/1/
[3] Ibid.
[4] Langleben, Daniel D., and Jane Campbell Moriarty. “Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law and Research Policy Collide.” Psychology, public policy, and law : an official law review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, May 1, 2013. Accessed January 26, 2018.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680134/
[5] Calderone, Julia. “There Are Some Big Problems with Brain-Scan Lie Detectors.” Business Insider UK, April 19, 2016. Accessed January 26, 2018. http://uk.businessinsider.com/dr-oz-huizenga-fmri-brain-lie-detector-2016-4?r=US&IR=T
[6] Kraft, Calvin J., and James Giordano. “Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties.” Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 8, 2017. Accessed January 26, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682320/pdf/fnins-11-00621.pdf
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Gurley, J. R., Marcus, D. “The Effects of Neuroimaging and Brain Injury on Insanity Defenses.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2008. Accessed January 26, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18327829
[10] McCabe, David P., Castel, Alan D., and Matthew G. Rhodes. “The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision-Making.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, July 12, 2011. Accessed January 24, 2018. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e44c/8f6dba5ec4fc85cb6982014ca52785c50dbb.pdf
[11] Ibid.
Photo Credit: Science Line http://scienceline.org/2008/11/ask-intagliata-lie-detection-fmri-brain-scan/

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​