Theoretically speaking, would you support mind reading in criminal trials?

No, this isn't Lounge fare. I was having a discussion a short while ago with a professor here at the college about some of the recent advances in neuroscience, including the little-reported fact that scientists actually observed a human brain form a memory structure in real time, for the first time, last month. It was a fascinating discussion and I learned quite a bit about some of the recent discoveries regarding what memories actually are and how they are formed. Then he dropped this little bombshell...at the present rate of research, most neuroscientists actually believe that we will have a machine capable of reading a live or dead human mind and reconstructing memories from it within the next 25 years. At this point, it mostly a matter of figuring out the pattern to the structures and developing scanners with the resolution to pick out all of the details in those structures.

I commented that it was a technology that could be easily misused, but he quickly stopped me and said, "Think about it, we could scan the brain of a murder victim to see who killed them, or scan the mind of an accused killer to see if he remembers doing it." While I didn't have a problem with the first idea, the second got me wondering. If it WERE possible to read the mind of an accused criminal, would society have the right to demand that it be used to ascertain their guilt, or should the individuals right to self-defense and privacy prohibit that kind of scanning? On one hand, it would cut the number of false convictions enormously, but on the other hand it would virtually eliminate a criminals ability to defend himself, and might reveal other aspects of the persons history that aren't related to the crime. What if a person was scanned for one crime, found to be innocent, but memories of other crimes were found? Ultimately, this all just gave me a headache.

Assuming that mind scanning technology will be here in 25 years, in what circumstances (if any) would you support its use? I realize this is all a bit theoretical, but I found the topic fascinating and I'm interested to hear your opinions. I've always considered mind reading to be the realm of voodoo and science fiction, and never really considered that we might have functional mind reading technology within our own lifetimes (or that there are actually scientists trying to develop this technology as we speak).

No way, no how.

I am a picture thinker ~~ I can see myself being convicted of something because I merely THOUGHT about it and the memory of what I thought in pictures was in my mind.

Fuck that shit ~~ the state now has too much power against a defendant. They do NOT need more.

JMHO

Then we could arrest people for thinking of commiting a crime! ><

shades of minority report.

Possibly within our lifetimes, but certainly within the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren.

It's called our eyes and ears. Not perfect but no worse than any likely scanning device.

I think it exceedingly unlikely that any brain scanning device will be invented within the next 25 years that will tell us anything more than said eyes and ears. A scan may tell something about the general category of information that someone is thinking about (e.g. verbal versus spatial information) or about our intended physical movements in the near future. But evidence does not suggest that very specific thoughts ("It was Jim who pulled the trigger") have specific locations in the brain - therefore reading them by scanning is unlikely.

I think his position was that whole-brain scanning will eventually make the point moot. By mapping and identifying every tidbit of information in your head at once, a computer can parse through it and reconstruct a particular event by connecting all of the various memory types associated with it. It probably would NOT be possible to scan for a specific event...they would need to dump all of your memories and dig through them until the relevant ones were uncovered.

My sick mind daydreams all types of illegal subversive behavior. It doesn't mean I have the courage to do any of it

The human mind is too complex to be measured in this way. If I were a juror on a trial, I would not be impressed with evidence obtained this way and would demand to see something more concrete.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

A rape victim for instance? I think it highly unlikely that such technology would be foolproof so that is my objection. However, theoretically, if it were 100% accurate, I wouldn't have a problem with it being use to gauge the truthfulness of witnesses especially in cases where a victim's truthfulness would come into question.

We "remember" all sorts of things that either never happened in the first place, or happened differently than we recall. Our memories aren't exact, the brain is not anything remotely like digital storage, and thus there's no way to guarantee that what happened actually happened at all.

It's not that the technology "isn't there yet", but rather that the concept of using such technology in criminal cases is fundamentally, and fatally, flawed in the first place.

How would this memory reader differ from verbal testimony? Would it be used to measure the voracity of the witness?

Your mind is "you", and therefore can't be used against you.

Court could rule that looking into the brain in a painless procedure is the same as taking fingerprints or blood.

They're not "witnessing against themselves". We're merely probing their mind and getting the information ourselves.

Then it becomes a 4th Amendment question, about unreasonable search & seizure. But then what if a court grants a warrant? Then they would be authorized to read your thoughts.

Sorry you had to write all that.

I have a pornographic memory :P

than to discover the true guilty party by "mind reading"?

You might as well go the next logical step to Precrime intervention and prior restraint.

Would you want to be mind read if you were ever in trial?

My answer is no.

It is why "hate crimes" legislation is misguided.


Punish the act... not the motive. One's thoughts, however despicable, should be off limits.

If you have the ability to read minds, then the ability to implant memories physically is not far behind. Or even the ability to erase memories of criminal behaviour.

I don't know, in the end, if this technology would be all that much more reliable then what we have now.

Researchers at Berlin's Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience claim they have now, for the first time, identified people's decisions about how they would later do a high-level mental activity — in this case, adding versus subtracting.

While still in its initial stages, the techniques may eventually have wide-ranging implications for everything from criminal interrogations to airline security checks. And that alarms some ethicists who fear the technology could one day be abused by authorities, marketers, or employers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256621,00.html


According to news here
is that a beam is being developed that allows scanning without the individual knowing it and is 3-5 years down the pike.

occasions where I would "remember" something and wonder was that real or a dream.

one piece of research that has been done shows that juries are FAR, FAR more likely to accord weight to testimony that starts with the phrase "Brain scans show that . . . ." and that no amount of scientific, expert testimony attempting to discredit the brain scan techniques is able to dislodge that.

They already have brain scan techniques that can allegedly detect lying. But criminal law experts point out that there is a world of difference between the test conditions and the conditions under which the police are attempting to figure out what is true. For example, in some of the tests the subject is told to intentionally lie. Now a person intentionally lying, in a controlled setting, where he or she is essentially committing the more or less moral act of following instructions is probably going to give a vastly different brain activity than a person intentionally trying to conceal something from perceived authorities.

FWIW -- that is my post #1000. Not much of a bang.

Instead, I think we are ready for, NOW, an amendment ensuring our right to privacy.

the Thought Police.


We could scan the brain of a murder victim? Even a dead persons "thoughts" could be scanned?

Apparently neuroscientists now understand the basic mechanisms by which memories form, can view their formation, and know the parts of the brain related to visual memory. Those memories are stored as a series of connections and protein chains that can take days to fully break down. Even in a dead person, those neural connections would still be there. It introduces the possibility of scanning the brain of a recently dead body, determining the most recent visual memories stored in the brain, and using those memories to reconstruct what happened to the person.

In a more expanded scan, it's potentially possible to get more information than that. Our brains record everything from our emotions, to smells, textures, and sounds.

The gent I was talking to this morning was a Trekkie, and mentioned that it might even permit Katras to become a reality. In Trek lore, Katras contained the memories and essence of those who had died before. In reality, this technology might permit us to take a snapshot of a loved ones mind at the time of death, so that our descendants could later view them to better understand their ancestors and the world they lived in. It's a bit surreal, but it's another genuine possibility if this tech really gets developed.

but interesting

Which is where being able to read minds after crimes have been committed will go next. Interesting to think about it though.

Sometimes I can't even be sure myself! Or a dream memory