Deception Detection in the Courtroom - Essay Example

Deception Detection in the Courtroom Some companies have been offering deception detecting technologies in the recent past. These technologies have been subjected to debates as to whether they are effective or not. Besides, there are arguments that the technologies should be applied in courts. This paper will oppose the suggestion of introducing these technologies in the courtrooms taking ethical among other issues into consideration. The use of neuroimaging techniques in lie detection can be discussed in depth to figure out how the technology can be applied for the benefit of the society. These technologies have displayed some characteristics that may not favor their use in courtrooms for lie detection. For instance, the use of the polygraph can give misleading information about a person. The simple principle applied by polygraphs is that it is stressful to lie, and stress brings up certain changes to normal functions of the body. The deviations from the norm can be measured, and the levels of stress determined to give conclusions. Another technology that is applied is fMRI. This is a type of technology that gives the direct behavior of the brain. Studies have been conducted to ascertain the effectiveness of this technology through experiments. There are differences in the brain’s activities when a person is engaging in lies and when the person is telling the truth. This simple principle is applied in the use of fMRI. There are debates that revolve around the application of this technology in getting justice in court rooms, but they have not been agreed upon. In this technology, there are procedures applied to detect deception. First, there is the Control Question Test (CQT), this uses simple yes/no answers to get the culprits’ data captured and the second is Guilt Knowledge Test (GKT). The test is used to unveil any hidden information from the person being tested. Another technique that can be used is brain fingerprinting, this technology applies the use of electroencephalography. This technique is used to detect any hidden information in the brain through measurement of electric brain waves. This technique is also being tested for the determination of whether individuals are engaging in lies or not. Much as the use of brain fingerprinting may be more accurate than the polygraphs, their use is not 100% accurate hence in lie detection it may give misleading assumptions (Freeman & Goodenough, 2009). The quest for the application of these lie detecting technologies in the courts should not be allowed. This is because several discrepancies have been determined, and the technologies can easily lead to misguided decision making relating to deception. The studies that have been conducted using the technologies have shown inconsistencies that may proof to be critical in decision making. Courtroom decisions are serious, and a lot of evidence that would lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt are needed. Application of the technologies like polygraphs may lead to misinformed decisions that may harm the characters involved. The technique may have a negative impact on the society because different people react differently to diverse situations. Creating anxiety among individuals may cause different reactions and hence the body functions may be altered, and conclusions may be drawn from such anxieties. The use of polygraphs uses the body functions to detect stress, but that does not mean that stress is caused by lying. In fact, most people are stressed up by the mere fact of being involved in a courtroom case and so naturally during the proceedings, the individuals’ body functions may be altered, applying the technology on them will give a misleading outcome. This argument can be used to deny the use of the technology in court because someone may unjustifiable suffer consequences of a felony they did not commit. The application of these technologies does not consider the fact that some people are so contented with lying that they do not get any effects in their normal body functioning even if they lie.to them being deceptive is a way of life. Dealing with such people in the society using the technologies may proof to be a bad idea. Some people have perfected the art of deceiving to the point where telling a lie and telling the truth cannot be contrasted. They can give lies confidently and so is how they can give true statements. The technology of fMRI also is also important in the discussion of the applicability of these technologies in courtrooms. This technology is not suitable for courts’ decision making. This is so because there are discrepancies in the technology just like the polygraphs. Awareness of countermeasures that culprits may apply to work against the use of this technology is many. Since the people who attend court cases might have criminal minds, they may as well tamper with the systems being used in the application of these technologies. An example of countermeasures that can be used to disrupt the interpretation of the fMRI data is the use of painful activities during the process. One may bite his or her tongue to inflict pain and this will disrupt the way the deceptive detectors will interpret the reactions. Such measures taken to counter the use of the technology have not been fully explored by technicians hence providing a weak point for the use of these technologies (Bergman & Berman-Barrett, 2015). In the use of technology, the connection between the measurements of signals to lying has not been developed. Standard measures applied in the application of the technologies has also not been ascertained. The use of Neuroessentialism in the court is not justifiable. Just because there are beliefs that something is wrong does not rule out the chances of it being right at all. Another phenomenon is neuro-realism that fMRI technology can be used to detect. Some ideas relate to the mind and not the brain. Studies have shown that how the brain reacts to some issues and changes in bodily functions is not directly related to the mind of a person. Lying cannot easily be detected by observing the changes in the brain because it is not a physical phenomenon. Applying the technique in the court of law is not acceptable since these activities may not give a true picture of the characters being tested. Some levels of technology can be allowed in court, though. In some situations, the application of technology should be done selectively to come up with concrete decisions. To conclude, the introduction of lie detecting technologies in the courtrooms is a bad idea because the technologies have not been fully developed to the standards that can give a concise description of what lies are being told. Taking into consideration ethical issues, it is clear that the right to privacy of individuals may be infringed if the technologies are used either with or without the conscience of the people involved. And this essay opposes the use of the technologies until they are fully developed. References Freeman, M. D. A., & Goodenough, O. R. (2009). Law, mind, and brain. Farnham, England: Ashgate. Bergman, P., & Berman-Barrett, S. J. (2015). The criminal law handbook: Know your rights, survive the system. Read More