posted
I spotted this today and thought it might be of interest to some of you. Apparently, a judge in India used brain scan technology to convict a woman of murder:
posted
Except that the system used has been decried by experts as unreliable, not thoroughly tested, and not repeated by others, I'd say awesome. Given the circumstances I'm less thrilled. I feel like this kind technology is inevitable, and desirable, if we want to reliably test criminals' innocence, but it should be done, as mentioned in the article, with the most extreme caution. Hopefully the scanner is later proven a good test of people's guilt
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that brain scans could be used to help prove guilt. Same problem I would have with lie detector tests. They might be accurate most of the time but people aren't all the same and we're really only scratching the surface of how the brain really works.
More generally I don't like the use of "evidence" such as a hair at the crime scene, or atmospheric traces that are consistent with having a decomposing body in the area, etc. Because it's really, really easy to figure out ways those kinds of evidence could occur without being tied to guilt. Not least of which is overly zealous and underly ethical police work.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
