EC Neurology

The permanent scope of courts has been to detect the truth and the lie, because they comprise the hallmark of justice. The last more reliable lie-detection tool before fMRI was the polygraph. FMRI is a more reliable tool, compared to the polygraph, to evaluate the claims of somebody as true or deceptive. Yet, it can detect false memory and if it leads to a lie or is restored. Its accuracy and reliability are proved through abundant scientific studies, and the scientific community has approved fMRI as a reliable lie-detection machine. Furthermore, fMRI can evaluate the psychopathic level of someone. The prejudices that the fMRI recordings were just images could not stand up. Either the countermeasures could not jolt the fMRI accuracy.

Since the beginning, neither the fact that its feedback did not cover all the American Supreme Court parameters to be accepted as court evidence nor the fear that the justice representatives might misinterpret the neuroscientific terms could impede the acceptance and impact of fMRI as legal evidence. Its use was extended to many criminal cases of European states. The fMRI influence was proved to be of vital importance. There are serious allegations that fMRI should be a coercive examination.

Keywords: fMRI; Lie-Detection; Forensic; Law; Brain; Polygraph; Human Rights; Recidivism

1. Cooper E. “Lie Detection: A Changing of The Guard In The Quest For Truth In Court?” Law and Psychology Review 33 (2009): 139-149.
2. Marks HD. “Interrogation Using Functional Mri And Cognitive Engrams”. Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies 8 (2008): 31-37.
3. Kleinmuntz B and Szucko JJ. “Lie detection in ancient and modern times: A call for contemporary scientific study”. American Psychologist7 (1984): 766-776.
4. Meijer HE and Verschuere B. “Deception detection based on neuroimaging: Better than the polygraph?” Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging (2017).
5. Iacono GW and Lykken TD. “The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion”. Journal of Applied Psychology3 (1997): 428-430.
6. Kozel FA., et al. “Detecting Deception Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging”. BIPSY 58 (2005): 605-613.
7. Marchewka A., et al. “Sex, Lies and FMRI - Gender Differences in Neural Basis of Deception”. Plos One (2012).
8. Haynes J-D. “Brain Reading”. In: Richmond S, Rees G, Edwards S, editors. I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging And Mental Privacy”. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2012): 29-40.
9. Feigenson N. “Brain Imaging and Courtroom Evidence: On the Admissibility and Persuasiveness of fMRI”. In: McLean S, Freeman M, Goodenough RO, editors”. Law, Mind and Brain. London: Routledge; (2017): 23-54.
10. Ogawa S., et al. “Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 87 (1990): 9868-9872.
11. McCabe PD., et al. “The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making”. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29 (2011): 566-577.
12. Myers B., et al. “The court of public opinion: Lay perceptions of polygraph testing”. Law and Human Behavior 30 (2006): 509-523.
13. Davatzikos C., et al. “Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: Application to lie detection”. Neuroimage 28 (2005): 663-668.
14. Langleben DD., et al. “Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI”. Human Brain Mapping4 (2005): 262-272.
15. Simpson JR. “Functional MRI lie detection: too good to be true?” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law4 (2008): 491-498.
16. Wagner A. “Can neuroscience identify lies?” In: Gazzaniga SM, Rakoff JS, editors. A Judge's Guide to Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction. California: University of California, Santa Barbara (2010): 13-25.
17. Mandell A. “Chair, Committee On Science And Law. Are your thoughts your own? “Neuroprivacy” and the legal implications of brain imaging (2005).
18. Thompson SK. “The legality of the use of psychiatric neuroimaging in intelligence interrogation”. Corn Law Review 90 (2005): 1601-1638.
19. Faigman LD., et al. “Neuroscientists in Court”. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4 (2013): 73-735.
20. Rosen RB and Savoy LR. “FMRI at 20: Has it changed the world?” NeuroIogy (2012).
21. Moberg PJ and Kniele K. “Evaluation of competency: Ethical considerations for neuropsychologists”. Applied Neuropsychology2 (2006): 101-114.
22. Rosen AC and Gur RC. “Ethical considerations for neuropsychologists as functional magnetic imagers”. Brain and Cognition 3 (2002): 469-481.
23. The United States Court of Appeals. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U (1993): 579 597.
24. Meegan VD. “Neuroimaging Techniques for Memory Detection: Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Issues”. The American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2008): 9-20.
25. Schweitzer JN and Saks JM. “Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense”. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29 (2011): 592-607.
26. Schweitzer NJ Saks MJ., et al. “Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: no impact”. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law3 (2011): 357-393.
27. Weisberg DS. “The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20 (2008): 470-477.
28. Miller G. fMRI Evidence Used in Murder Sentencing (2009).
29. Cohen J and Meskin A. “On the Epistemic Value of Photographs”. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 (2004): 197-210.
30. Cohen J and Meskin A. “Photographs as Evidence”. In: Walden S, editor. Photography and Philosophy. New York: Blackwell (2008): 70-90.
31. Walton LK. “Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism”. Critical Inquiry 11 (1984): 246-276.
32. Kotsaki K., et al. “Ugo Cerletti (1877-1963): an early Italian father of electroshock and a pioneer in many other ways”. Neuroscience (2021).
33. Brown T and Murphy E. “Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States”. The Stanford Law Review4 (2010): 1119-1208.
34. Compton SE. “Not guilty by reason of neuroimaging: the need for cautionary jury instructions for neuroscience evidence in criminal trials”. The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 12 (2010): 333-354.
35. Faigman LD., et al. “Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: Exploring the past, understanding the present, and worrying about the future of scientific evidence”. The Clinical Law Review 15 (1994): 1799-1810.
36. Greely TH and Illes J. “Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection: The Urgent Need for Regulation”. The American Journal of Law and Medicine2-3 (2007): 377-431.
37. Honess MT and Charman AE. “Members of the jury - Guilty or incompetence?” The Psych.2 (2002): 72-75.
38. McAuliff DB., et al. “Juror decision-making in the Twenty-First Century: Confronting science and technology in court”. In: Carson D, Bull R, editors. Handbook of psychology in legal contexts”. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd (2003): 303-329.
39. Pratt B. “‘Soft’ science in the courtroom?: The effects of admitting neuroimaging evidence into legal proceedings”. Penn Bioethics Journal 1 (2005): 1-3.
40. Sinnott-Armstrong W., et al. “Brain Imaging as Legal Evidence”. EPIST 5 (2008): 359-373.
41. Vincent NA. “Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments”. Neurone 4 (2011): 35-49.
42. Wolpe PR., et al. “Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection: Promises and perils”. American Journal of Bioethics2 (2005): 39-49.
43. Kaplan MF and Miller LE. “Reducing the effects of juror bias”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (1978): 1443-1455.
44. Kerwin J and Shaffer DR. “Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin - SAGE Journals 20 (1994): 153-162.
45. Hakun GJ., et al. “fMRI investigation of the cognitive structure of the Concealed Information Test”. Neur (2008).
46. Meek WS., et al. “The Impact of Memory Retrieval on Deception and Truth Telling”. N A J Psychology 3 (2018): 637-652.
47. Shao R and Lee TMC. “Are individuals with higher psychopathic traits better learners at lying? Behavioural and neural evidence”. Translational Psychiatry (2017).
48. Yu J., et al. “Can fMRI discriminate between deception and false memory? A meta-analytic comparison between deception and false memory studies”. Neurosc Biob Review 104 (2019): 43-55.
49. Farisco M and Petrini, C. “On the Stand. Another Episode of Neuroscience and Law Discussion From Italy”. Neuroe (2013).
50. Ligthart JTLS. “Coercive neuroimaging, criminal law, and privacy: a European perspective”. Journal of Law and the Biosciences (2019).
51. Gurley JR and Marcus DK. “The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defences”. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 26 (2008): 85-97.
52. Lieberman JD., et al. “Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law1 (2008): 27-62.
53. Muncy MN and Kirwan CB. “Correcting False Memories: The Effect of Mnemonic Generalization on Original Memory Traces”. BioR (2021).
54. Langleben DD., et al. “Imaging deception with fMRI: The effects of salience and ecological relevance”. 34^th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA, Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC (2004).
55. Hsu C-W., et al. “The effect of mental countermeasures on neuroimaging-based concealed information tests”. Human Brain Mapping (2019).
56. Ganis G., et al. “Lying in the Scanner: Covert Countermeasures Disrupt Deception Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging”. Neurology 55 (2011): 312-319.
57. (GC). Ibrahim and others/UK, appl.nos. 50,541/08, 50,571/08, 50,573/08, 40,351/09, § 267 (2016).
58. (GC). Ibrahim and others/UK, appl.nos. 50,541/08, 50,571/08, 50,573/08, 40,351/09, § 266 (2016).
59. Funke v. France, appl.no. 10828/84 (1993).
60. J.B. v. Switzerland 31827/96, appl.no. 31827/96 (2001).
61. Caruana v. Malta, appl.no. 41079/16, § 36 (2018).
62. (GC). Saunders v. UK, appl.no. 19187/91, § 69 (1996).
63. Funke v. France, appl.no. 10828/84, § 44 (1993).
64. Ganci v. Italy, appl.no. 41576/98, § 20–22 (2003).
65. (GC). Boulois v. Luxembourg, appl.no. 37575/04, § 85 (2012).
66. Wanner v. Germany, appl.no. 26892/12 (2018).
67. Jackson JD and Summers JS. “The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. 1st edition”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2012).
68. United States Supreme Court. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267 (1967).
69. (GC). Bărbulescu v. Romania, appl.no. 61496/08, § 70 (2017).
70. Aycaguer v. France, appl.no. 8806/12, § 33 (2017).
71. (GC). S. and Marper v. UK, appl.nos. 30,562/04, 30,566/04, §72, 75, 84 (2008).
72. (GC). S. and Marper v. UK, appl.nos. 30,562/04, 30,566/04, §74 – 76, 120 (2008).
73. Peruzzo and Martens v. Germany, appl.nos. 7841/08,57,900/12, § 44–49 (2013).
74. Schmidt v. Germany, appl.no. 2352/02 (2006).
75. W. v. The Netherlands, appl.no. 20689/08, 9 (2009).
76. ECtHR (GC). S. and Marper v. UK, appl.nos. 30,562/04, 30,566/04, § 72–73 (2008).
77. Kocsis NR. “Criminal profiling: principles and practice”. New Jersey: Humana Press (2006).
78. Murdoch J. “Protecting the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under the European convention on human rights”. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (2012).
79. Simpson JR. “Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry: From the clinic to the courtroom”. 1^st Chichester, West Susssex: Wiley-Blackwell (2012).
80. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Colvin-e1 v. State, 332 Md. 144, 166, 630 A.2d 725, 736 (1993).
81. Maryland’s supreme court, The Court of Appeals. Garnett v. State, 332 Md. 571, 576-79,632 A.2d 797, 800-01 (1993).
82. Kotsaki K. “A Historical Review on Stigma of Epilepsy and its Interactive Factors”. Global Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities5 (2022): 001-0010.