Slashdot Log In
Indian Woman Convicted of Murder By Brain Scan
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Sep 15, 2008 07:57 AM
from the 1984-came-a-few-years-late dept.
from the 1984-came-a-few-years-late dept.
Kaseijin writes "Neuroscientist Champadi Raman Mukundan claims his Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test is so accurate, it can tell whether a person committed or only witnessed an act. In June, an Indian judge agreed, using BEOS to find a woman guilty of killing her former fiancé. Scientific experts are calling the decision 'ridiculous' and 'unconscionable,' protesting that Mukundan's work has not even been peer reviewed. How reliable should a test have to be, when eyewitnesses are notoriously fallible? Does a person have a right to privacy over their own memories, or should society's interest in holding criminals accountable come first?"
Related Stories
[+]
Science: Company Claims EEG Scans Can Help Identify ADHD 373 comments
Al writes "Technology Review has an article about a company hoping to expand the clinical use of electroencephalography. Thanks to better sensor technologies, data-processing techniques, and more detailed knowledge of the brain, EEG is expanding into completely new areas. A startup called ElMindA, is developing an EEG system to help doctors diagnose attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Scientists have also used ElMindA's system to characterize brain-activity patterns in patients with ADHD, identifying statistical parameters that differ between normal people and those with ADHD." If "normal people" can sit through high-school classes without being distracted and grumpy, count me out.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
They think... (Score:4, Funny)
... they can reliably read someone's mind to determine whether they committed a crime?
That is mental.
Re:They think... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is possible to do a brain scan to detect that a statement is untrue or unsettling in some way, but that doesn't mean that the person is guilty of a specific crime.
It takes a long time of interrogation to be able to measure what's normal and what's not. And even if you get an abnormal reading it may not be caused by guilt - it may be because the subject is unsettling.
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:4, Funny)
I could kill the operator of the scanner with a thought. Simple countermeasures.
Just concentrate on an imagine of a combination of Goatse, Tubgirl, 2g1c, and Lemon Party. Instant aneurysm.
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:5, Funny)
Seems like a Pyrrhic victory.
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:5, Funny)
I could kill the operator of the scanner with a thought. Simple countermeasures. Just concentrate on an imagine of a combination of Goatse, Tubgirl, 2g1c, and Lemon Party. Instant aneurysm.
So that's what the title means with Indian Woman Convicted of Murder By Brain Scan. Murder by Brain Scan - the googles do nothing...
Parent
The developed world has similar attitudes (Score:5, Insightful)
" Man sexually attracted to children, court told [abc.net.au] "
"A Canberra court has heard an O'Connor man who has been charged with downloading child pornography from the internet finds young children sexually attractive."
So he must have done it! Police never try to set up unpopular members of society.
Presumably he'll get a longer sentence as a result of admitting that he's attracted to children.
Parent
Re:The developed world has similar attitudes (Score:5, Informative)
You're very welcome to support the anti-paedophile crusade, but shallow perceptions of paedophiles lead to hysterical responses like this [shropshirestar.com].
It won't be long before the UK and US has taken away all of its citizens' freedoms under the guise of "protecting children from paedophiles".
You seem to believe that people should be imprisoned for being attracted to children. Around 25-33% of men are aroused by children*; who is going to pay for that level of imprisonment?
Occurrence of Paedophilia in the General Population [attractedtochildren.org]
Parent
Re:The developed world has similar attitudes (Score:5, Funny)
You seem to believe that people should be imprisoned for being attracted to children. Around 25-33% of men are aroused by children*; who is going to pay for that level of imprisonment?
That is not a problem for America. You just lack a positive attitude, over here we're AmeriCAN not AmeriCAN'T.
Parent
Re:The developed world has similar attitudes (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post, and even the link you provided are missing something extremely important. A definition of "children". If you definition of children includes sexually mature humans in their late teens, but still children by some legal definition then it's really a rather misleading statistic, don't you think? There's a reason they're called jailbait. They're physically mature enough to be sexually attractive to other members of the species for no other reason than the basic human desire to procreate that we all share, but legally, and perhaps morally off limits.
Parent
Re:The developed world has similar attitudes (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's mental is that a jury (or worse, a judge) accepted the result of a new, questionable, unproven technology as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was guilty. (I assume here that the Indian justice system has the same burden of proof as most others.)
What's mental is that this will probably set precedent.
What's mental is that this may be used from now on without question even when we did the same thing with polygraphs, only to realize later that they are notoriously inaccurate.
What. The. Fuck.
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:5, Informative)
India's legal system, like the USA's, is based on the British Common Law system. In it, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It's a miscarriage of justice, even if this technology is ultimately vetted and proven 100% reliable, because right now, the technology is in question.
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. It's unfortunate that Simpson almost certainly got away with murder. But the fact of the matter is that the LAPD was a bunch of incompetent bumbling fools in the matter, and hateful fools at that. Their attempts to frame a (probably) guilty man ended up setting him free. The jury's decision was correct in this case.
Parent
5th (Score:5, Insightful)
In the U.S. I would say yes, because we have the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. In Indian law, I have no idea.
At first blush this sounds like a high-tech form of seeing if the witch can float.
Re:5th (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
If you don't allow it (Score:5, Funny)
Think of the Children (but not in that way... we will know).
Parent
Re:5th (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is they would argue that brain scans are of the same family of evidence as DNA; e.g. it doesn't "testify against you", but is rather physically relevant to the case.
I guess it is a grey area (no pun intended!), but really we shouldn't even need to have that conversation. The study hasn't been peer reviewed, it's a new and relatively untested technology, what the hell are they doing admitting it at all, as testimony or as evidence?
Hell, the last time I saw MRI-based lie detection it was on Mythbusters, and even there it failed outright on one of the three people they tested it on.
Parent
Re:5th (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:5th (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say you're psychic, or a witch, or some other controller of paranormal/supernatural powers. Let's say you're the real deal. What would you gain by stepping into the spotlight and announcing yourself?
Frankly, I would think the truly powerful would let the fakes draw the media attention, and let the discreditors have their day. At a certain level of power, such vainglorious attention-whoring is beneath you. It's easier to get on with one's life and work without all that attention.
Parent
Re:5th (Score:5, Informative)
Under the Randi Challenge? A million dollars.
Parent
Re:5th (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
what if (Score:5, Funny)
What if James Randi has a psychic power of neutralizing other para guys?
Then he catches them in an alley and sucks their brain out.
No wonder they don't dare to fight him.
Ooops, sounds like i watched too much Heroes...
Parent
Re:James Randi challenge (Score:5, Informative)
Actually if you bothered to JFG, to would find that the $1,000,00.00 is in an endownent fund account administered by Golman Sachs, so bar the bank collapsing or it getting embezzeled, the money is real qand is going nowhere.
See http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html [randi.org] for further info
Parent
Re:5th (Score:4, Insightful)
tests aren't hard.
"I can lift things with my mind!"
"Then just stand behind this barrier and lift that pile of peas over there one at a time into the cup over there."
"Ummmm.... it isn't working because the spirits don't like to be tested!"
"I can see the future"
"Right, go sit in the box, tommorrow the computer is going to show you a random symbol, draw it for us"
"But but but... no fair!"
Parent
Re:5th (Score:5, Funny)
psychics are real despite what the blowhard freak James Randi would have you believe.
Ok, I will grant that psychics are real. It's just their supernatural abilities that are fake.
Parent
Re:5th (Score:5, Funny)
Ah. So it's a machine to determine if she's made of wood?
Parent
Re:5th (Score:5, Funny)
No, it determines if she weighs the same as a duck.
Parent
Did anyone else ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone else ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah. I was hoping to read about how if you put a brain scan machine up to 11 the person's head explodes. But no.
I see Phrenology (Score:5, Informative)
is alive and well...
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
So, a male centric and predominantly misogynistic country used this new and entirely untested technique to find a woman guilty of murder.
Gosh, what a surprise.
We are talking about a country where women regularly get murdered by the men in their own family, and no-one is punished, after all.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
That's right. And if you want to stand up for women's rights vote McCain Palin 2008! Palin - Because women are always the victim (tm).
Parent
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Not American, but I AM someone whose worked voluntarily helping set up a shelter for battered Indian/Pakistani wives in the UK.
Parent
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Honor killings as you have read recently about in the media, did not happen in the same country
Are you claiming that 'honor killings' do not occur in India?
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040113/asp/nation/story_2780541.asp [telegraphindia.com]
http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/archives/04_0112_in_wrights.htm [onlinewome...litics.org]
Just like any other technology, now that its available, society has to make sense of how best to use it.
Yes, and that is by throwing it in the heap with all the other pseudo-science and outright quackery.
Parent
DHS has to be involved! (Score:5, Funny)
I knew that it was ahead of it's time but Geesh! Does anyone know what version he is using?
Just goes to show, there is no security by obscurity! Hopefully those Haiku guys will get it up and running soon!
Just goes to show.. (Score:5, Funny)
..BEOS has always been way ahead of the competition!
Convicted by BeOS! (Score:5, Funny)
I hear the judge has ordered that she be imprisoned inside a giant NeXTcube.
Three things. (Score:4, Insightful)
Would a man have been convicted in this case? Or is this just another example of the crap that women still face in most societies around the world?
This machine has not been peer reviewed, and yet a judge trusts it? Sounds like the judge should be removed from their position. And all convictions related to this judge that might be plausibly shown to have been influenced by this judge's ignorance, should be thrown out.
I hope this women is able to appeal.
As to privacy related to memories. Well, I would suggest that this machine isn't capable of reading a person's memories at all. However, I do think that this should be voluntary only. After all, there are many memories not related to the alleged crime that would have to be "read". Not only that (at least in the USA), all information "found" not related to the "crime" should not be able to be used by law enforcement.
I'm sure you could make a Fifth Amendment type argument here (if you are in the USA).
Re:Three things. (Score:5, Informative)
The two states in India that allow it have set up labs were the device was/is being tested, the lack of per review is that the people outside of India do not have full access.
This is the second case where the judge has mentioned the test, the first was against a man. In the first case the judge said that the test was not used as "concluded proof" but that the tests backed the other evidence. In this case the judge include 9 pages on why he used the test results and defense of the system.
As for its use, in India to have the test run on you requires that you volunteer. In the US I would guess it usage would have to meet the same requirements that were setup for lie detectors. A quick search shows that their has been no federal ruling, excluding that lie detectors don't work, so you have some locations where the judge can order a person, some where lie detectors were considered no different from taking a persons fingerprints, to others where they said a person could not be forced.
Parent
Ever read Zelazny's Lord of Light? (Score:4, Interesting)
They would use it to review people up for reincarantion (dying, aged, etc) before transferring their consciousness to a new body and life, one assigned based on the results of said brain scan...
I know this is nowhere near that, just found it ironic such a thing would surface in India. ------- Hey, wonder if it can determine if you saw or committed an act in a past life...
Justice Field (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Justice Field (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
obligatory firefly reference (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I would imagine it would be fairly easy to distinguish a lie from the truth by EEG or fMRI. The pathways for recollection as opposed to creativity (lying), cause activity in different parts of the brain.
'Where were you last Tuesday at 3:00pm?' - If the person tells the truth, they're recalling the events. If they're lying, they're constructing a scenario in their head. The two would be very distinguishable.
That said, it's not without issues: First of all, if I pre-construct a scenario and run it through my head enough, it becomes a recollection and not a creation, I believe. Also, I'm not entirely sure that there's been enough actual studies of using fMRIs and/or EEGs for detecting lies vs. truth, nor how beatable the system is. Until these things have been studied and documented, they certainly shouldn't be used by courts.
There are companies in the U.S. trying to get fMRIs used for precisely this purpose. One example is the company, No Lie MRI [noliemri.com].
If such systems can be proven reliable, then I'm all for using them in courts. Not so much to convict people, so much as to keep the innocent from being convicted, which happens plenty in the U.S.
This is how interrogation should work (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Hook person up to a brain scanner.
2) Show the person random images of places they never seen until their brain doesn't care anymore.
3) Show the person an image of a place they've seen, and it will trigger thoughts.
It is helpful for interrogation. It is a bit spooky to use for crimes.
It Will Never Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Eyewitness testimony is fallible for the same reason one's own memory for personal events is fallible: everything we 'remember' is constructed from what is stored and seems related, producing the fastest good enough result. The same research supports both. False memory and memory rejection can happen because memory is never entirely accurate. One can even be fooled into "remembering" something someone else supposedly saw but never occurred, convolving both eyewitness report and personal memory. The foremost researchers in this field are often called to testify in court cases where false and lost memory are involved.
As such, if this judge had any sense, he'd throw the supposed researcher in jail and recuse himself after throwing out the verdict. There's no way a "brain scan" can tell how accurate a "memory" is unless it can compare what it's measuring with the perception and cognition during the actual event. And if it could do that, the operator would be there to witness the same event.
The researcher should at very least be investigated for scientific fraud. The same people that would have thrown his work(?) out under peer review would testify against him.
Everyone knows... (Score:4, Funny)