Reading thoughts as evidence in court? The science fiction or the future of proof?

We often hear that one or the other defendant has “passed the polygraph”, but this fact should in no way affect the determination of whether someone is truly guilty or not. Polygraph is a method that is largely obsolete and proven unreliable to establish truthfulness. Concern is, in fact, often using it in today’s judiciary. However, is there any scientific method that can with certainty determine whether someone is telling the truth or not?

Breakthrough in the field of proving true FMRI or functional magnetic resonance. It is a technique that reads the brain’s response, that is, the detection of the “signature” of the brain for individual psychic surgeries, and for example, it is possible in theory to detect a neuronal response pattern to situations in which the defendant consciously lies. Whether the FMRI is a reliable method, the practice will reveal, but scientists claim with great confidence that they can detect a brain print for all situations, and therefore for the lie and the truth. The brain is actually a sophisticated machine that responds to certain stimuli and what distinguishes it from volatile surgeries that largely affect the classical polygraph is that brain operations are out of our power of action and are therefore more reliable. The first case in which the FMRI was used as evidence is the case of Aditi Sharma of India whose cordial signature indicated that she was involved in the murder of her fiancé. Although the new evidence was taken into consideration, and directly higher courts did not dispute this evidence.

The FMRI may be far from comprehensive implementation of the commission of criminal offenses, but the question arises whether such a thing can be allowed? We believe that the development of human rights in the future will have to go in the direction of protecting thoughts, not only in terms of their expression on the outside world, but also in the sense of the right to personal, intimate thought. After all, we need to emphasize the disadvantages of thinking, especially now that we know that various stimulants can influence the thinking and understanding of reality. We believe that before using such an evidence, one should create preconditions both legal and scientific in the form of a complete decipherment of the process of thinking and the human brain as the most sophisticated “hardware”.

Since the use of FMRI in proving in Serbia, we are still very far away, especially considering that magnetic resonance is difficult to do even in its original function, for the detection and treatment of the disease. On the other hand, some other scientific techniques appear, which will soon become irreplaceable in their use as means of proof. It is with great pride that we can say that our office was the first in Serbia as an instrument of proof to engage in 3D reconstruction in the process of killing Gardista at Topcider, and that after that, in many cases this evidence took its place in the illumination of crimes, and especially in cases of traffic accidents and reconstruction of the crime scene.

Write a Reply or Comment