03-18-2009, 05:03 PM
Hi,
Now, much of jurisprudence depends on forensics. *Your* fingerprints at the scene testify against you. *Your* DNA, ditto. A large amount of physical evidence, nowadays, is really parts of you testifying against you. And in every case, that form of evidence went from inadmissible, to admissible under extreme conditions, to generally and routinely admissible. So much for the Fifth and physical evidence.
Polygraph evidence, OTOH, is not admissible in any US court (AFAIK). Which is a good thing, given the unreliability of polygraph evidence (almost as bad as eye witness, but, as AB says, that's another show). It is, I think, that unreliability, rather than the Fifth, that keeps polygraphs out.
It is not clear, to me, whether brain scans will fall into the physical evidence category. Will they be able to distinguish between real memories and fake memories? Will they be detailed enough to actually describe what happened, or will they be of the "I was there . . . a gun went off . . . he fell down" meaningless generalities. How would we even know? What is a memory, how is it stored? We know that it is not stored in some recorded fashion like a tape. What happens when all or part of a memory is lost? Or can it ever be lost -- maybe it is just the retrieval mechanism that fails. The book is still in the library, but the card is gone from the catalog. And, to carry the analogy one step further, is the book fact or fiction, or some combination of both.
So, while I suspect that memory scans may take a long time to be admitted as evidence (if ever), I suspect the barriers will be technological (as it is with polygraphs) rather than ethical (or legal).
--Pete
Quote:Well, technically, you shouldn't be required to incriminate yourself. DNA, Polygraph, fingerprints are comparable physically observable items, but interpreting what is happening inside the brain (depending on how sophisticated) would be like administering a truth drug during interrogation.There is no fundamental ethical reason why one should not be forced to incriminate oneself. When asked, "Did you kill Cock Robin?", you should have to say answer "Yes" or "No". Because the means available at the time to force such an answer were repugnant to the Founding Fathers, they gave us the Fifth Amendment. When the Fifth was ratified, there was damn all in forensic science. Occasional eye witness reports, some 'he said, she said', and the oratorical powers of the attorneys decided cases.
Now, much of jurisprudence depends on forensics. *Your* fingerprints at the scene testify against you. *Your* DNA, ditto. A large amount of physical evidence, nowadays, is really parts of you testifying against you. And in every case, that form of evidence went from inadmissible, to admissible under extreme conditions, to generally and routinely admissible. So much for the Fifth and physical evidence.
Polygraph evidence, OTOH, is not admissible in any US court (AFAIK). Which is a good thing, given the unreliability of polygraph evidence (almost as bad as eye witness, but, as AB says, that's another show). It is, I think, that unreliability, rather than the Fifth, that keeps polygraphs out.
It is not clear, to me, whether brain scans will fall into the physical evidence category. Will they be able to distinguish between real memories and fake memories? Will they be detailed enough to actually describe what happened, or will they be of the "I was there . . . a gun went off . . . he fell down" meaningless generalities. How would we even know? What is a memory, how is it stored? We know that it is not stored in some recorded fashion like a tape. What happens when all or part of a memory is lost? Or can it ever be lost -- maybe it is just the retrieval mechanism that fails. The book is still in the library, but the card is gone from the catalog. And, to carry the analogy one step further, is the book fact or fiction, or some combination of both.
So, while I suspect that memory scans may take a long time to be admitted as evidence (if ever), I suspect the barriers will be technological (as it is with polygraphs) rather than ethical (or legal).
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?