For countless years mankind has attempted to construct different ways to detect falsehoods. Being able to detect a lie is crucial in regards to the legal system, as it would play a pivotal role in creating different opportunities for innocence and exoneration. The use of lie detection technology would assist in anti-terrorist objectives, law enforcement, and protect the innocent. It would even be capable of finding the innocence of those in penitentiaries wrongly convicted. This new neuro-inflation phenomenon has the potential to impact the lives and futures of all people. Yet, there are many issues that come with such technology. Similar to the questions raised about older lie detector technology such as the polygraph, new lie detector technology faces a slew of problems in regards to the impact it may have on self-incrimination and privacy. Before being allowed in the legal system such technology must be fully assessed ranging from its sensitivity and reliability to its accuracy and error probability. Currently such technology may not yet be ready to successfully be used in the legal courtrooms of the United State, and they should not be until they are proven to make any type of mistake.
A technology that is beginning to gain prominence in this arena is that of functional magnetic resonance imaging or FMRI. FMRI has been used in research as a way to find what specific parts of the human brain are used for lying and deception. Thus far, there have been two judicial court ruling on whether the use of FMRI as lie detector is justifiable. Many ethical issues come into play when considering the use of such technology in the courtroom, but all these issues heavily depend on the human brain itself. Of course, the human brain is one of...
... middle of paper ...
...d policies of the use of such technology must be established before the use in judicial areas. Despite these necessary areas needed to be improved upon the potential of FMRI and similar like technologies to be used as lie detectors in American courts is strong and will continue to gain popularity in law communities around the country as they become more reliable.
Works Cited
Berry, J., Ladd, S (2013). The Potential Role of fMRI in Lie Detection - ERADIMAGING.COM: RT CE. [online]
Church, D. (2011). Neuroscience in the courtroom: An international concern. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 53, p.1825.
Lowenberg, K. (2010). fMRI Lie Detection Fails Its First Hearing on Reliability « Stanford Lawyer. [online] Stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.edu.
Willhelm, J. (2013). Detecting Deception in the Courtroom at Nimmons seminar: Pinocchio response does not exist. [online] Jaxdailyrecord.com
Ewing, C., & McCann, J. (2006). Minds on trial: Great cases in law and psychology. NY: Oxford University. pp. 129-139. Retrieved from http://undergrad.floridatechonline.com/Courses/PSY3100/Critical_Reading_Ewing_McCann.pdf
One of the last types of ways investigators are coached to detect deception is in the behavioral attitudes of a person being interviewed such as being unconcerned or over anxious (Kassin, 2005). The success rate of looking for these cues are very successful in telling if an individual is being deceitful and has surpassed any laboratory tests conducted on the subject. The laboratory test however did reveal some interesting facts. The research showed that people who had training and experience did not score better than the control group who received no training. In fact all individuals scored at the chance level with the people who had training scored just above chance or at the chance level. To check if special training in the detection of deception was more accurate a study ...
Newring, K. B., & O'Donohue, W. (2008). False confessions and influenced witnesses. Applied Psychology In Criminal Justice, 4(1), 81-107.
In Laurence Armand French Ph.D. and Thomas J. Young Ph.D.’s article The False Memory Syndrome: Clinical/Legal Issues for the Prosecution talks about memory recall being an unreliable form of evidence in the Criminal Justice System. French and Young state that hypnosis and lie detector tests are a misconception because “the cognitive interpretations of the emotional/autonomic aspects of the central nervous (CNS) and peripheral nervous systems are not true indicators of reality,” (p. 38).
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI),which is one of the most exciting recent developments in biomedical magnetic resonance imaging, allows the non-invasive visualisation of human brain function(1).
Costanzo, Mark, and Daniel Krauss. Forensic and legal psychology: psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2012. Print.
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Science Applied to Law. New York: Worth Publishers.
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
The social need for Forensic Psychology arose from the need for expert testimony in a court of law. After Stern’s discoveries, psychologists began appearing more and more often in courts (Tartakovsky, 2011).
Deception exists in media, among prestigious universities, and perhaps most commonly in the workplace. According to Dunleavy (2010), reasons for deception in the workplace include: competitiveness, conflict, or a response to a supervisor or fellow employee (p. 241). Dunleavy develops hypotheses’, conducts experiments, and collects data to determine what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior as it applies to deception in the workplace. Ultimately, the reason for deceiving and the method in which one deceives, through either withholding (omission) or distortion (commission), directly effects the perception of coworkers’ credibility, power, and trustworthiness (Dunleavy, p.241).
The insanity defense presents many difficult questions for the legal system. It attracts attention beyond its practical significance (it is seldom used successfully) because it goes to the heart of the concept of legal responsibility. ‘‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’’ generally requires that as a result of mental illness the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. The many difficult and complex questions presented by the insanity defense have led some in the legal community to hope that neuroscience might help resolve some of these problems, but that hope is not likely to be realized. (Smith 475)
Forensic Psychology, which is occasionally referred to as Legal Psychology, originally made its debut in the late 1800’s. A Harvard Professor, Professor Munsterberg, introduced the idea of psychology and law with his book, On the Witness Stand in 1908. Since the inception of the idea of psychology and law there have been proponents, as well as though that have spoken against the theories proposed by Munsterberg’s, along with other scientists, theorists, and psychologists that believed that Forensic Psychology had no standing to be linked to topics of law. This literature review will attempt to identify scholarly articles that trace the origins and the movement that led to Forensics Psychology becoming a specialty within the field of psychology. I will also attempt to explain What is Forensic Psychology as well as the part it plays within the legal system.
Deception is sometimes used by researchers when they conduct psychological experiments. Deception occurs when the participant is misled about the purpose, design, of the experiment, or when the researcher uses deliberate misleading to persuade the subject into believing a certain view (McLeod). Many people believe deception is ethically wrong, and psychologists should not use it to obtain important information. I believe psychologists should be able to use deception if the participant is not psychologically harmed. It is believed that deception is the only way we can obtain true information (Connolly). The knowledge we are able to obtain about psychological tendencies outweighs the temporary effects of deception.
Beginning in the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s forensic psychology originated when a man named James McKeen Cattell conducted a study at Columbia University. During his time learning and coming up with the idea that psychology could be used as a way to solve court cases he did many experiments with his students. In one study he allowed 56 of his students practice eye witness testimonies with a series of questions. He conducted the experiment by asking the students about trees and asked the students to rate their confidence in what they saw and recall what they saw hours later. During this experiment Cattell...
A popular way on many crime dramas to determine if a suspect is lying or telling the truth is by hooking them up to a polygraph machine. In a matter of a minute the police are able to determine if the suspect is lying and guilty or, on the rare occasion, telling the truth and innocent. But, one has to wonder, is it really that simple? Polygraphs measure four main factors that are thought to change when a lie is told and more importantly, it is assumed that these changes indicate deception. The four main factors are blood pressure, heart beat, perspiration, and breathing and these are recorded by using simple devices. It is important to note from the beginning that those who question the reliability of polygraphs do not doubt the reliability of the measurements, but the ability of the measurements to indicate and/or prove deception. Even though doubt exists as to the reliability, polygraphs are used not only in law enforcement settings, but also in intelligence agencies, in the maintaining security of industry, and for public safety and service around the world. Despite its prevalence, there are many groups that call into question the effectiveness, reliability, and fairness of polygraph testing. This paper will explore this question by first looking into the history of polygraphs including court rulings and how polygraph tests are done, then current use, and finally looking at sources of bias and error in the test and the process.