Brain Fingerprint Says Convicted Murderer Is Innocent
from the do-we-trust-the-technology? dept
It’s been over a year since we last mentioned the debate over “brain fingerprinting” – a technology for reading someone’s brainwaves to see if their brain has the information stored. In other words, if you present some bit of info that only a person involved in a crime would know – their brain fingerprint would indicate they knew it. This is, of course, very controversial and not everyone is convinced that it really works. The debate should rise up again, now that a convicted murderer on death row has been given a brain fingerprint that shows he does not know important details about the murder. Of course, it does make you wonder if someone involved in a particularly horrific crime (as this one appears to be) might black out the memory of the crime to the point that such a brain fingerprint would come up negative.
Comments on “Brain Fingerprint Says Convicted Murderer Is Innocent”
junk science
This reminds me of the hogwash about how your eyes look in a different direction when you’re making stuff up compared to when you’re retrieving information. There’s a book on these techniques that’s used by professional interrogators to completely fuck up their jobs.
I just can’t believe that we know enough about how the brain works to make this kind of evaluation.
Not that we wouldn’t be able to, in principle, in the future, I just don’t think neurology has that capability yet. Certainly not without the cooperation of the particular subject in question to create the control data.
Re: junk science
This reminds me of the hogwash about how your eyes look in a different direction when you’re making stuff up compared to when you’re retrieving information.
Bogus, maybe, however most of us do give away information subconsciously that can show that we are being less than truthful. Lie detectors, which may or may not work all the time, detect subtle changes in the physical body which could detect whether someone is lying.
Police officers use similar techniques all the time to gauge whether someone is telling the truth or not, and while it is not perfect (someone who is a compulsive lier can usually break this stuff,) it apparently works enough that they continue to use it.
I received training on this at one time, but I must admit that at the time I thought it was a little junky, though it did serve its purpose. The biggest problem is that we aren’t very good at reading other people’s subconscious body language, and what may look like lying may be just a nervous tick or some other non-guilty habit.
Re: Re: junk science
…while it is not perfect (someone who is a compulsive lier can usually break this stuff,) it apparently works enough that they continue to use it.
They continue to use it because that’s what they were taught, not because they evaluated it critically and found it to be good enough.
The biggest problem is that we aren’t very good at reading other people’s subconscious body language, and what may look like lying may be just a nervous tick or some other non-guilty habit.
No. The biggest problem is that no one has ever been able to show that these techniques provide any statistically measurable improvement over guessing. It’s voodoo, pure superstition. As far as I’m concerned, you might as well interrogate people with an astrolabe.
Re: Re: Re: junk science
The biggest problem is that no one has ever been able to show that these techniques provide any statistically measurable improvement over guessing. It’s voodoo, pure superstition.
Maybe, maybe not. I won’t go so far as to agree with you as there is obviously a lot of interpersonal communication that goes on behind the scenes, and body language is real (whether you believe it is or not, if not, you probably have never flirted with anyone.) As to whether we can gauge this, and use it, I doubt it, like you said, because there is no statistically measurable improvement over guessing. But just because we cannot measure it now doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. (Some people are perfectly happy with the effects of voodoo, superstition, hypnosis, herbal remidies, etc., even though both of us may see them as being rediculous.)
inadmissable
Polygraph tests are inadmissable in court because they’re known to be unreliable. Yet people are still coerced into taking them by the police even though passing one won’t exonerate you but failing one will make you the primary target of an investigation. And refusal to take one is as good as an admission of guilt in to law enforcement.
Re: inadmissible
Ironically, I was accused of a crime about a year ago that I did commit. When questioned by the police I enthusiastically agreed that I would like to take a lie detector test knowing full well that they are inadmissible in court and are not accurate. As a result of my ability to fool the police officer, they never chose to administer the test. I highly doubt police can now read our minds.
Minority Report anyone ?