Mediaboss Marketing

(Jon Olav Eikenes via Flickr | http://bit.ly/1BOh016 Rights information: http://bit.ly/NL51dk)

Brain imaging can already pull bits of information from the minds of willing volunteers in laboratories. What happens when police or lawyers want to use it to pry a key fact from the mind of an unwilling person?

Will your brain be protected under the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable search and seizure?

Or will your brain have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

These are issues the United States Supreme Court is going to have to resolve, said Nita Farahany, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who specializes in bioethical issues.

Those legal choices are likely decades away, in part because the exacting, often finicky process of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) could be thwarted if a reluctant person so much as swallowed at the wrong time. Also, a brain exam couldnt be admitted in court unless it worked well enough to meet the legal standards for scientific evidence.

Still, the progress being made in brain decoding is so intriguing that legal scholars and neuroscientists couldnt resist speculating during a law and memory session earlier this month at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California.

Our brains are constantly sorting, storing and responding to stimuli. As researchers figure out exactly where and how the brain encodes information, the fMRI also becomes a tool that can decode that information. The fMRI can identify the portions of the brain that are active, based on the increased quantity of freshly oxygenated blood they draw. Already, brain decoding can perform a version of that old magicians trick guess what card someone is looking at with better than 90 percent accuracy, University of California, Berkeley neuroscientist Jack Gallant told the group.

Farahany predicts that like most new science, brain decoding will break into the courtroom for the first time through a cooperative witness, someone who wants to use it to advance his or her case.

Stanford University law professor Henry Greely, who moderated the Feb. 13 law and memory session, suggested that a court might be especially open to novel techniques during the sentencing hearing in a death penalty case.

Read this article:
Nita Farahany: In the future, could brain imaging be used as legal evidence?