Lying to deceive others is innate to human nature since the existence of mankind. Human beings, on average, tell one to two lies a day beginning at the age of two (Vitelli, 2013). A central question of mankind yet to be answered is how do we know when someone is lying? This question is greater emphasized in a courtroom setting. Court systems rely on eyewitness accounts therefore credibility is a main concern (Schauer, 2009). Lawyers worry about misperceptions and fudging from both parties; but also about witnesses and defendants flat-out lying. So once again, we can ask the central question; how do we know when someone is lying? Lie-detecting technology has existed since 1902 and rose to prominence in 1921 with the invention of the polygraph
…show more content…
A study by Kozel et al. in 2004 states that in lying compared to telling the truth, there is increased activation in the right anterior cingulate, right inferior frontal, right orbitofrontal, right middle frontal, and left middle temporal areas (Kozel et al., 2004). This study was completed with 14 subjects (mean age 27.8) who chose which task to lie about out of two in a laboratory setting. Since their evidence, quote, “replicated prior group brain correlates of deception”, the authors state their results show that fMRI is a reasonable tool for lie-detection in a courtroom (Kozel et al., 2004). Other authors agree with this generalization, however, there is highly contradicting evidence towards the fact that just activation alone of these areas does not mean you are lying. Further, does a lack of activation of these areas mean you are telling the …show more content…
It does not seem reasonable to translate the results of fMRI data from a laboratory into a courtroom. As stated by Frederick Schauer, “fMRI lie detection is a research topic and not a legal tool,” (Schauer, 2009). Can a brain scan send someone to prison? And worse, can police request a warrant to search your brain? Where does using neuroscience in the law cross ethical boundaries? I believe one of the most crucial pieces of evidence as to why fMRI should not be used as a lie detector is the Fifth Amendment. As stated in the Constitution of the United States, “[No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” (Reuters, 2018). I believe allowing someone’s brain scan to be used as evidence causes them to self incriminate. Although the legal system sends people to prison, doing so requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; so even if prosecutors, despite the existing self-incrimination law, could compel a brain scan of a defendant, the reliability of fMRI lie- detection is not high enough to support conviction under that
A study by Kozel et al. in 2004 states that in lying compared to telling the truth, there is increased activation in the right anterior cingulate, right inferior frontal, right orbitofrontal, right middle frontal, and left middle temporal areas (Kozel et al., 2004). This study was completed with 14 subjects (mean age 27.8) who chose which task to lie about out of two in a laboratory setting. Since their evidence, quote, “replicated prior group brain correlates of deception”, the authors state their results show that fMRI is a reasonable tool for lie-detection in a courtroom (Kozel et al., 2004). Other authors agree with this generalization, however, there is highly contradicting evidence towards the fact that just activation alone of these areas does not mean you are lying. Further, does a lack of activation of these areas mean you are telling the …show more content…
It does not seem reasonable to translate the results of fMRI data from a laboratory into a courtroom. As stated by Frederick Schauer, “fMRI lie detection is a research topic and not a legal tool,” (Schauer, 2009). Can a brain scan send someone to prison? And worse, can police request a warrant to search your brain? Where does using neuroscience in the law cross ethical boundaries? I believe one of the most crucial pieces of evidence as to why fMRI should not be used as a lie detector is the Fifth Amendment. As stated in the Constitution of the United States, “[No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” (Reuters, 2018). I believe allowing someone’s brain scan to be used as evidence causes them to self incriminate. Although the legal system sends people to prison, doing so requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; so even if prosecutors, despite the existing self-incrimination law, could compel a brain scan of a defendant, the reliability of fMRI lie- detection is not high enough to support conviction under that