Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I think this would be great first step, should the promise come true. Innocent people would no longer be convicted. No more need to worry about the last stand against executing innocent people, and endless appeals regarding innocence could dropped.Then, perhaps, they will come up with a good "juror" test. Unfortunately, it might make a bunch of trial lawyers, like John Edwards, go out of business.Who knows, perhaps as the technology improves, it could go to the voting booth. "The reason you are actually voting for Clinton is that you secretly wish he would ravage you."And readers could insist upon live brain scans of news anchors and others, so we can tell when they are lying to us.This could truly be revolutionary.
What if self-deception, being in denial, or being dronk/steoned at the time changes the brain? What if you tell yourself that something is the truth enough times, it shows up as the truth in your brain scans? Without having an opinion in this particular murder case, it strikes me that "what is your birthday" and "did you kill your friend 4 years ago after drinking/smoking pot" are two different kinds of questions. Two lies might return tow completely different brain images. Call me a skeptic.
Shades of Jim Carrey in "Batman Forever".
Maybe I was dronk/steoned when I wrote that comment. Drunk /stoned. There.
I wouldn't use this 'method' or 'technique' outside of the lab. Period.
No worries. It will be accepted as gospel truth for a few decades during which many of the wrong people will be sent to prison, and then the skeptics will start to be heard.See also, Shaken Baby Syndrome, DNA testing.
No, that can't be true, prairie wind, because a white lab coat makes one a High Priest of The Truth. Scientific Dogma must never be questioned, until the High Priests decide that it may be. Otherwise you risk being branded a heretic and a denier.
Correlation is not equivalent to dependence. Any outcome from this study will have statistical significance, but will otherwise serve as circumstantial evidence, which will likely be dependent on individual attributes.
The technology of the 18th, 19th, 20th Century caused profound societal transformations.The 21st is already doing so as well. Cell, then smart phone has made each person, even in the 3rd world, a communications hub with 1,000 applications and a library and a means of photoing or videoing all events they observe - all self-contained, on their person.RFID has made it possible to query people and objects about their nature and history.Instant comms and free flow of capital and resources has destroyed ancient ideas of Comparative Advantage under Free Trade.Now it is all about an Owner Class seeking out the lowest bid labor pool on the planet...provided laws safeguard their investment. What if the freedom to lie is removed by not just brain activity measurements but powerful computer diagnostics backed by multiple sensor arrays that can measure and evaluate involuntary human eye movement, body temp, changes to respiration, hand response, pheremon release, 18 key facial muscles twenty times a second? That will be as impactful as the destruction of Ricardo's free trade theories by modern technology.
@C4Unless the jews control the technology? (sorry, couldn;t resist;-))It does bring up some interesting questions. With out a "base" comparison before the crime happened I would think a clever lawyer would argue that it's not guilt causing the current readings but the fear of being held guilty. And of course the corolary arguement would apply too.And what about drugged addled states, and drug addled minds? This sounds too easy, so I am going to have to come down on the side of too erratic to be entered into a court of law with the caveat "at this time" Later on, as the tech is refined, it could be revisited.Ps.Who will complain when the tech for this becomes remote, and sensors are deployed on every street corner to detect the thoughts of inimical persons? Minority Report anyone? When does the thought of committing a crime become punishable? I have thoughts all the time, and I don't respond to a majority of them.Pps.For a few weeks now my spelling has been degenerating to the point that I worry htat I've had a minor stroke, how would THAT effect this technology? Someone with a stroke would read different than a healthy person, thus rendering the test invalid.(too erratic as I said)
Police and prosecutors are like rabid dogs. The politics involved in American justice has corrupted the system so thoroughly that my default position has become to disbelieve prosecutors unless there is convincing physical evidence. They coerce confessions and plea bargains, withhold evidence and indict people based solely on the likelihood of conviction or the availability of property to confiscate. The more you read about it the more frightening it gets. The mere fact that a prosecutor chose to pursue this murder charge suggests nothing about the defendant's guilt to me. It's way past time we took the politics out of the justice system. But it just seems to be getting worse.
Post a Comment