Everything is not black and white when it comes to proving that one is guilty or innocent based on

Neuroscience evidence has impacted some cases in the history. In 1991, the structural neuroimaging evidence was presented in the criminal proceeding, Herbert Weinstein was being tried for second-degree murder, he was the primary suspect in his wife’s death. It was believed that during the heated argument, he strangled her and threw her body from the window of their apartment to make it look like a suicide (Rojas-Burke, 1993). His defense attorney claimed that Weinstein is not responsible for his actions due to a mental defect. Where a large cyst located in his membranous casing of his brain had increased the pressure on his frontal cortex, metabolic imbalances in the region that resulted to decreased his ability to tell right from wrong.

The polygraph might be effective for some people but not for all. They should try to find another method besides this one to see if the person is lying. If they know that the polygraph isn’t all that great, there would be less innocent people in jail. They can use this test to tell them that it actually works and if they deny to take the test, then it means that they have something to hide. I don’t think that they should base the decision just on the polygraph test and they should tell the judge and jury what the problems are with the test. The polygraph test is basically seeing if there is arousal when certain questions are asked. I know that if they asked me or demanded an answer from me, I would be scared and for sure the polygraph will detect it but that does not mean that I committed the crime, it just means that I am scared. Anyone would be scared if they were being asked those questions. In fact, I think I would be more concerned if the person answered with no problem at all. There are different methods that can be used but they all have problems to them. I think the researchers should conduct an experiment where they will have a jury who understands the polygraph test and knows its issues and a jury that knows nothing about it. They will be able to see how that will affect the decision of the jury. They can then take the results the criminal justice system and they can stop using the polygraph

Plummeting the load of dishonesty has been the crucial goal of the cohort for ages to melt off the hassle of suspicion and increase the competency of human beings. The multitude of all ages has tried their best to wipe out deception and regain trust with the available technologies. Still the fundamental nature of humanity to deceive can’t be altered. Recently, fMRI imaging has come forth as a Protector of the mental capacity to assess deception and discriminate dishonesty from actuality. The future of the courtroom seems endangered with the over persuasiveness of this neuroscience data. How does fMRI work? Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): is a technique that directly evaluates the blood flow to the brain, thereby providing information

While the courts have been slow to accept polygraphs, others have embraced them. Polygraph tests have gained general acceptance in the scientific fields of psychology and psychophysiology and in the areas of those disciplines devoted to credibility assessment. Psychophysiological credibility assessment, commonly known as polygraph testing, has long passed the experimental stage.

Fischman discusses how he was able to see distinct patterns of brain development, or lack thereof, in the youth, some as young as 3, in his study. He was able to find some similarities between the breakdown of certain areas of the brain and a predictor of violent crimes. He also eluded to the fact that knowing this could save a future victim from this malformed criminal mind. What his research did not show is, how many of these “pre-criminal minds” have malformations of the brain, but never commit a crime. In Clara Moskowitz’s article, “Criminal minds are different from yours, brain scans reveal”, she details that there is no clear way to determine who will commit a crime and who will resist the urges for criminal activity. Moskowitz does conclude that the research would be helpful in therapeutic sessions with the children who have abnormal brain scans in order to equip them with the tools necessary to live productive lives. Both articles were an insightful look into the brain and

First, Lie detectors, otherwise known as polygraph tests, only have a 50:50 chance to predict whether a person is lying or not. According to the book, A Tremor in the Blood, “… an innocent suspect has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing a CQT…(Lykken, 277).” The CQT is a controlled question test. According to the American Psychological Association, “The CQT compares responses to ‘relevant’ questions, with those of ‘control’ questions (apa.org).” It has been proven that a person once even trained them self to pass a lie detector test. According to the journal article, The Art of Deception: Polygraph Lie Detection, “The accuracy of polygraphic lie detection is

The majority of the research regarding polygraphs conclude that while they are better than chance, they simply aren’t anywhere near as precise as many people claim. The primary issue is that polygraphs really measure arousal, not “lies”. There are many different reasons for the subject to be aroused outside of lying, such as anxiety, PTSD, nervousness, confusion, and withdrawal. There is no evidence that physiological reactions exist that are unique to deception. In fact, Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note that, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In addition to the questionable scientific foundation of polygraph tests, there are a great many variables that can affect results as well. Tests are done in many different ways, purposes, and procedures, not to mention the influence that examiners, examinees, and situational factors have on the validity of the

The polygraph is a device that is used by law enforcement to see if a suspect is lying. It measures a person`s emotional response, assuming that a person will be anxious while lying. This device is commonly used by law enforcement and has been shown to work, although it has made errors, as well as suspects, have found techniques to beat the test. Another test has been created the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), which does show promise, and is harder to beat.

Criminal responsibility revolves around intent, which is a theme in debate on culpability. The study to be reviewed was led by Williams et al (2010), which found at the age of 16, 46% of offenders interviewed reported TBI. The main cause of the TBI was violence. Reports of more than three TBIs were associated with a greater proportion of violence in criminal offences, suggesting number of TBI is positively correlated with number of aggressive acts. Research in the past similarly indicates individuals who experience traumatic brain injury (TBI) are more likely to commit future criminal acts (Raine et al, 2005). Individuals with TBI affecting the frontal lobes are at an increased risk of impulsive aggression and reduced affective empathy (Brower & Price, 2001), characteristics evident in frequent offenders (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004). This suggests an increased risk of criminal behaviour, post-TBI, especially when the frontal area is damaged. Thus, can TBI be used to reach the not guilty verdict in court, by reasons of diminished responsibility or can it be argued other premorbid variables at work?

The article by Moheb Costandi represents the most contended topic among the Neuroscientist across the globe; how reliable or effective an fMRI data could be in solving cases in the court. Moheb provides evidence backing up his thoughts on the use of fMRI data during a trial. He starts off the article along the positive note of using the imaging technique. Moheb provides us with some lawsuits where the fMRI imaging was employed as a tool to resolve the enigma. Like the controversial trial held in Mumbai, India. Moheb also gives the example of a trial held in Brooklyn, where defense lawyer David Zevin also submitted fMRI data as a proof in his client’s justification. Moheb like many other neuroscientists and litigants

However, there is no “Centre of dishonesty” in the human’s brain. Those neurons can even be more active when someone is telling the truth, or when they are trying to decide whether to be honest or not. However, these techniques can detect lies up 78 to 85% of the time, which shows that we making good

According to Nigel Barber of Psychology Today, the polygraph was created on the idea that a person telling the truth would be calm and collected, while a liar would be nervous and fidgety. The polygraph detects an increase in sweating and the rise of the pulse rate in the individual who is taking the test. The polygraph is capable of successfully

A popular way on many crime dramas to determine if a suspect is lying or telling the truth is by hooking them up to a polygraph machine. In a matter of a minute the police are able to determine if the suspect is lying and guilty or, on the rare occasion, telling the truth and innocent. But, one has to wonder, is it really that simple? Polygraphs measure four main factors that are thought to change when a lie is told and more importantly, it is assumed that these changes indicate deception. The four main factors are blood pressure, heart beat, perspiration, and breathing and these are recorded by using simple devices. It is important to note from the beginning that those who question the reliability of polygraphs do not doubt the

Credibility- Now, I would like to consider myself an expert lie detector, but apparently binge-watching 12 seasons of Criminal Minds in 3 months does not give me those qualifications. So to better inform and assist you, my lovely audience, I did some research, mostly utilizing online materials.

Behavioral neuroscience or biological psychology employs the principles of brain pathology to the study of human behavior through genetic, physiological, and developmental operations, as well as, the brain’s capacity to change with experience. Since the second world war, crime was largely attributed to mostly economic, political, and social factors, along with what psychologists termed at the time, the “weak character” of mental disturbance, and brain biology was rarely considered. However, new advances in neuroscience and technology have allowed a number of studies that link brain development, impairment, and injury to criminal violence. This emerging field of psychology explores the brain at a microscopic level, focusing studies on the roles that the brain’s neurons, circuitry, neurotransmitters, and basic biological processes play in defining and molding all human behavior.