http://www.brainwavescience.com/Ruled%20Admissable.php
The concept of brain fingerprinting is actually a fairly simple one. A suspect is hooked up to a series of monitors that will enable the administrator to see the reactions in the brain and measure brainwaves. They then are flashed a series of words on a computer screen in front of them. They have to click a mouse in their hand when think the words are relative. This is just to keep them paying attention. The real test is in their subconscious reactions to the words flashing on the screen. Some of the words are just randomly selected words that have no meaning. Other words however have some direct relation to the crime or crime scene. A lot of the information for the words is taken from reports that were not published or are not common knowledge about the crime. The theory is that when a person sees a word that has something to do with the crime certain neurological things happen in the brain. These reactions can then be measured. If someone reacts to words that have to do with the crime but are not public knowledge the thought is that person had to be there when the crime was committed. The opposite could also be said. If a person does not react to things that the offender would certainly know then they may be innocent of the crime. This is why I say that this technology could be used as a very good investigative tool. I must say however I am shocked to have read this was ever admitted in a court.
One of the main weaknesses of brain fingerprinting is in the ability of results to be replicated. The creator of brain fingerprinting, Lawrence A. Farwell, PhD; has a patent on the design and the equipment used to perform the test. He has refused to let other scientists perform the procedure and therefore has not allowed for credibility through replication. As anyone knows who has taken any research or science class, one of the fundamental principles of any scientific research or test is its ability to be replicated. I know one of the other drawbacks of brain fingerprinting was that the test was a very lengthy one. It was given to one inmate who was on death row trying to prove his innocence. The testing process of this one man took three days. There are obviously some issues that need to looked at and overcome but I think that the idea behind it is sound. I am all for any type of advancement in science that can help with the investigation of crime. It reminds me of a polygraph and I’m sure some of the criticism it faced at first. As with any new technology there are always kinks that have to be worked out at the beginning. I think it is an exciting possibility though. You may be a good enough liar to fool the police, and you may even be able to beat a polygraph, but one thing e know for sure is you cannot control your subconscious. The possibility of being able to know for fact the guilt of a person would do great things for the system.
http://www.brainwavescience.com/
This is cool, but as you said its inability to be replicated is definitely a disappointment. I don't know how much I would actually believe in something like this nor would I want the decision of my trial reliant on this technology. I would like to see this technology and improved by using test subjects rather than inmates or the accused so that people with nothing to lose could admit to whether or not the test is accurate
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of this before. I was really surprised that something like this even exists - but it's actually really cool. Like you said, I was very surprised to see that this was admitted in court. Another factor that you mentioned was that there has been no replication of the experiment. Because the researcher won't share the idea with anyone, it makes it near impossible to continue producing the same results unless he is the only one who does it. Right now, I think that the idea has a lot of potential, but it will definitely take a few years for the process to get smoothed out, as well as to make sure that this is something that can be used on a regular basis and was not simply a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteThis seems real cool adn fascinating and all, but this is hard to believe. It is also flawed due to the fact that it cannot be replicated as of now. It is said to measure the subconscious of the offender, but what if the offender has no subconscious or remorse. Then the brain fingerprinting couldn't work. I think this brain fingerprinting needs more tests to be much more effective because of now I dont see how this is any better than a polygraph machine.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of this before, but I do think it is a good and interesting concept. It is somewhat like an extreme polygraph, but seems like it would be more accurate. At the same time what about cases where the person blacked out or have multiple personalities? Just because the brain is so complex and, we don’t even use most of it, so we definitely don’t understand it, I don't see brain fingerprinting being something that our criminal justice system will used anytime soon. I do actually think this is an interesting concept to study and build on. I would like to see the results from experiments.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like it could be promising in the future, after the study has been replicated and shortened. I like the fact that a suspect would not be able to lie, thus making the brain fingerprinting much more accurate than a polygraph. You brought up a good point: the subconscious cannot lie. This is the beauty of brain fingerprinting. From what you shared about it, it seems as if it would be a surefire way to detect if someone is lying or telling the truth. I feel this could definitely enhance the efficiency of the criminal justice system.
ReplyDelete