The Presence of fMRI in European and American Courts

By Konstantina Kotsaki MSc, Forensic Phychology 

The permanent scope of courts has been to detect the truth and the lie, because they comprise the hallmark of justice. The last more reliable lie-detection tool before fMRI was the polygraph. fMRI was proved to be a more reliable tool, compared to a polygraph, to evaluate the claims of somebody as true or deceptive. Yet, it could detect false memory and if this memory leads to a lie or is restored. Its accuracy and reliability were proved through abundant scientific studies, and the scientific community has approved fMRI as a reliable lie-detection machine. Furthermore, fMRI could evaluate the psychopathic level of someone. The prejudices that the fMRI recordings were just images could not stand up. Either the countermeasures could not jolt the fMRI accuracy. 

Since the beginning, neither the fact that its feedback did not cover all the American Supreme Court parameters to be accepted as court evidence nor the fear that the justice representatives might misinterpret the neuroscientific terms could impede the acceptance and impact of fMRI as legal evidence. Its use was extended to many criminal cases in European states. The fMRI influence was proved to be of vital importance. There are serious allegations that fMRI should be a coercive examination. 

Introduction 

FMRI was defined as a modern truth test. Initially, it was used to discriminate between truth and deception. The modern truth test could successfully distinguish between truth and deception. In real life, there could be false memories, too. The latter should not be excluded from the studies on fMRI interrogations. Unlike the polygraph, fMRI comprises a trustworthy diagnosis of false memories. It could detect if the false memories will insist and as a consequence, there will be told either lies or whether these memories will be corrected. 

The overlap between brain parts activated during deception and false memory does not mean non-accuracy of fMRI, but that the allegations could be not indisputably true and MIGHT not be the truth. Because of negative bias toward fMRI, it was not always considered when presented in courts. In some cases it could not pass the courtroom doors because fMRI images were estimated to be just photographs and thus they had nothing to do with reliable evidence. Another reason why judges excluded it from evidence presented to juries was because they saw fMRI as the reason that would lead juries to have a wrong judgment. In many other cases, it was admitted and taken seriously into consideration by the justice corps to evaluate if there was truth or deception. The use of fMRI in the courtrooms was not limited to its function as a lie-detection tool. There were cases of usage to prove the accuracy of the events by providing proof of the mental capacity and state of the defendants or victims. When rejected, it was not due to fMRI underestimation from the trial but due to insufficient fMRI data explanation provided by neuroscientists or the unimportance of any fact the fMRI results were presented for. Nowadays, after being admitted and affecting many forensic cases in American and European Courts, there is an endeavor to add fMRI to the compulsory investigations of any testimony when the latter is not evident and confuses the image the justice representatives create about what has really happened. (This article was first published at https://ecronicon.org / photo: freepik.com)

Read the full article here