Should the Police Be Allowed to Impose Brain Scans on Suspects?

The most vicious cause of wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification. According to the Innocence Project, 72% of overturned wrongful convictions through DNA testing were due to eyewitness misidentification1. As this statistics implies, eyewitness identification (Eye-ID) is untrustworthy information. The main reason why Eye-ID lacks accuracy is due to malleability of memories. The Innocence Project asserts there are two variables greatly influence memory and also Eye-ID. One type of variables is “estimator variables” which are incontrollable factors by the criminal justice system. Examples of estimator variables are environmental factors (e.g., lighting and distance) when the crime occurred, racial factors, and psychological factors (e.g., severity of trauma)1. The other type of variable is “system variables” which is controllable by the criminal justice system. These variables are within the procedure of attaining evidences. For instance, post-identification feedback (e.g., confirming feedback that an eyewitness receives), biased lineup/ photo array composition, biased administrators of lineup can negatively influences Eye-ID.

Every year, hundreds of people get convicted wrongly as a result of criminal proceedings that are rooted in miscarriage of justice. The defendants are convicted for crimes not committed where errors are not proven until their death or having served a lot of jail time. Wrongful convictions are fueled by false witnesses, incompetence of defense lawyers and inadequate evidence among others. However, with the emergence of forensic DNA in collection of evidence, the rate of wrongful convictions has decreased in the past few years. This paper focuses on the fallibilities that lead to miscarriage of justice and what role technology has played in correcting and mitigating the previously erroneous judicial system.

In order to comprehend the contribution of psychology to areas of criminal investigation it is important to evaluate research into two of the following areas of criminal investigation: eye witness testimony and offender profiling as well as assess the implications of the findings in the area of criminal investigation. In addition, this essay, with reference to relevant psychological research, discuss how the characteristics of the defendant may influence jury behaviour as well as analyse two psychological influences on the decision making process of juries. In order to improve the efficiency of detection and successful prosecution of crime it is important to underline that in a previous administration, detection of serious crime was poor and eyewitness testimony appeared very unreliable, partly due to standard interview techniques yielding confusing results. It is therefore this essays primary focus is to provide the chief constable with a report explaining how psychologists might be able to improve this situation with a full evaluation of process and evidence.

Less frequently, individuals will allude to the "CSI Effect" to allude to the inverse, nonetheless. Defense attorneys, for instance, now and again contend that attendants impacted by "CSI" have a tendency to accept that any scientific confirmation gathered will be implicating. This is likewise hazardous, commentators say, in light of the fact that individuals don't normally think about the likelihood of error or even fraud [source: Cole. Scientific researchers have been known to fudge results about request to get a conviction, in the event that they accept that is the thing that the police desire. Take, for instance, Joyce Gilchrist, a police scientific expert who

There are many instances in which the polygraph is proven to be at fault such as with Cleve Backster. He was a polygraph examiner and believed strongly in the polygraph and its results. Backster one day decided to attach a houseplant that was in his office to the machine. He then would light the plants leaf on fire to see if the polygraph would have a spike in action. To his surprise as he struck the match the polygraph jumped signifying a response (Eells). Instead of considering that the polygraph went off randomly Backster instead assumed the plant had feelings and could even read his mind. This discovery lead to many scientific research projects in which scientists were unable to replicate Backster’s results. Rather than dismiss the event and polygraph as unreliable Backster dedicated the rest of his life to proving his discovery. The polygraph has been drilled into the minds of people as credible that taking it out of the justice system

The CSI Effect is said to have poisoned the minds of jurors and their expectations of presenting evidence by the forensic science T.V. shows like CSI (Crime Scene Investigators) influence their perceptions of jurors being able to provide forensic evidence. “Using the fact that Hollywood could determine the outcome of case by letting the guilty go free, but in a society where the criminal justice system has convicted many people who was innocent.” (McRobert’s, Mills, & Possley, 2005, P. 1). Juror’s have demanded the use of forensic science for forensic evidence in criminal trials which means that prosecutors will have to provide more of the proof of juror’s to get a conviction. CSI Effect believe that crimes show such as CSI have little to no affect on juror’s actions to make a

Anti-scientific bias has been an American evidence law for several reason. Many of admissibility and legal sufficiency rules have been proved to be bias in America. This bias has been an underlying issue that typically for the citizen that become potential juror because they cannot critically evaluate the evidence like a highly professional would. In the results of a national educational test, it was demonstrated that there is a widespread in the United States of scientific illiteracy. With the principle of scientific proof, there has been a lot of controversy over drugs testing presents with forensic science and the unknown of the citizen who are posed as jurors during this time. This was a debate that the scientific community could help and

    Most of the evidence presented during the trials were not strong as it was hard to refute a hallucination someone may or may not have had. The brain is such an intelligent organ, but at the same time is highly suggestible making it

Eyewitnesses are critical to the criminal justice system, but there have been issues involving eyewitness testimonies, which occasionally cause them to be seen as unreliable. According to innocenceproject.org, 72% of DNA exoneration cases in the United States have resulted from eyewitness misidentification. This is concerning because in a study by Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2005), they examined jurors, judges and law enforcement’s knowledge about eyewitness issues. They found that those involved in the legal system are still very unaware of eyewitness memory research, and the reasons behind why eyewitnesses may or may not be considered reliable. There needs to be a way to increase reliability so that eyewitnesses are able to accurately recognize perpetrators and other important information to put the guilty people away, and to keep the innocent people free.

In the data-collection phase, the examiner will complete polygraph charts, the charts and questions will vary depending on different cases. The examiner then analyzes the collected data in the data analysis phase. The examinee then has the opportunity to explain or rationalize answers to different questions asked during the exam. Although some may criticize the polygraph tests, advances in technology, and science improves the polygraph exams. Multiple factors play a key role in the accuracy of a polygraph, including the experience of the examiner, the obediance of the examinee, and the way the exam is constructed. It is important to consider body language when interviewing examinees as well. This includes things that examinees may be saying, how they say it, and when they say it. One’s body does things that it cannot control, both inside and out, which plays an essential role in exams. When a polygraph test is administered perfectly, and appropriately the accuracy rate is above ninety percent. On the other hand, false positives on the polygraph exams may happen. A good examiner will try to identify, and get away from false positives. When Ruby has a false

According to Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer (2003), the majority of convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved mistaken eyewitness testimony. The Innocence Project estimates that around 70% of the convictions due to eyewitness misidentification have been overturned by DNA evidence (2015). A main factor in this occurrence is that eyewitness memory is unreliable (Wright, 2007). Eyewitness identification in a line-up is an important tool in criminal investigations. The eyewitness evidence that results from these line-ups has an impact on the subsequent investigation and prosecution procedures (Wells, 1984). Furthermore, according to Wright, it is not just about witnesses making errors when identifying, misidentifying, or not identifying, a suspect

R. Evid. 702. See, e.g., John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150, 166 (Minn. 2012) (the “theory forming the basis for the expert's opinion or test [must be] reliable.”); State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 768 (Minn. 1980) (hypnotized subjects are exposed to outside influences so the use of hypnosis-induced evidence lacks scientific reliability); Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 816 (expert's methodology failed to include review of plaintiff's medical records and relied upon non-peer reviewed battery of tests performed six years after the fact). The hallmark of a reliable and admissible expert opinion is one that is based upon a scientifically valid methodology. Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 809. Pursuant to the Rules, expert opinion testimony must be based on facts or data. See Minn. R. Evid. 703(a)-(b)(a)(“The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. (b) Underlying expert data must be independently admissible in order to be received upon direct examination; provided that when good cause is shown in civil cases and the underlying data is particularly trustworthy, the court may admit the data under this rule for the limited purpose of showing the basis for the expert's opinion. Nothing in this rule restricts admissibility of underlying expert data when inquired into on cross-examination.”). According to the advisory committee note, “the requirement that the facts or data be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field provides a check on the trustworthiness of the opinion and its foundation. In determining whether the reliance is reasonable, the judge must be satisfied

Throughout history, there have been many misjudgments, mistakes, and wrongful accusations toward people from various different factors. A great deal of controversy has been directed towards the criminal justice system in which scientists pose questions on whether or not the procedures are valid. It is imperative to understand how the brain malfunctions regarding to memory reconstruction, encoding failures, and other environmental factors that negatively impact the justice system. One of the procedures called lineups or photo arrays are used in order to have eyewitnesses identify a subject guilty of a crime. In the lineups, subjects are lined up while the accuser has to choose an individual that they believe committed the crime. Using the same idea with the photo arrays, the victim will choose from a set of pictures of subjects (Weir, 2016). Many scientists question the validity of eyewitnesses because of all these factors that impact memories. This has lead to a substantial amount of wrongfully convicted individuals by the eyewitness which is a huge issue in the system (Weir, 2016). It is crucial to be knowledgeable of the factors that can impede memory. The person that actually committed the crime should be held responsible for their actions, not only for justice, but for the safety of others as well.

Now those people who were not the real criminals had been proved innocent by DNA technology and Loftus’ theory. Also, when there was no proof to who was the suspect exactly, the polices asked the victims to choose the suspect’s photo from a few photos, which may feed the victims wrong information that the criminal looks like one of them or one of them was the suspect. I guess now justice system would decide if the person is innocent not only base on the testimonies, but also the result of DNA test and the psychological investigation. They should ask people questions in a proper way that doesn’t affect their

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.