Brain Fingerprinting

[Bottle or the Gun]

A controversial technique for identifying a criminal mind using involuntary brainwaves that could reveal guilt or innocence is about to take centre stage in a last-chance court appeal against a death-row conviction in the US.

Tested by the FBI!

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Interestingly, this technique might be useful to establish that someone didn't commit a crime, but be utterly incapable of showing that someone did commit a crime.

And I can think of plenty of ways for its utility to be limited even in the first case.

 

[Kerberos]

Interestingly, this technique might be useful to establish that someone didn't commit a crime, but be utterly incapable of showing that someone did commit a crime.

And I can think of plenty of ways for its utility to be limited even in the first case.

Why couldn't it be used as evidence against a person? If he had reacted especially strongly to the room where the murder was committed, or to other things that he couldn't have known if he was innocent, then that would certainly indicate guilt. Presuming the technique really works of course.

 

[Darat]

Why couldn't it be used as evidence against a person? If he had reacted especially strongly to the room where the murder was committed, or to other things that he couldn't have known if he was innocent, then that would certainly indicate guilt. Presuming the technique really works of course.

Is it because in the USA there is the 5th admendment with the phrase "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

More importantly, we wouldn't be able to determine why he responded strongly.

For example, he could have been framed. If this technique became widespread, people wouldn't be able to be informed of the evidence against them, as they might recognize it later. He might have seen similar images in a totally unrelated context. Some aspect of the presentation might be familiar to the person.

Therefore, people might respond to the information even though they didn't commit the crime.

Furthermore, it might be the case that some people could commit the crime and not respond as expected. For example, autistic people do not seem to "recognize" faces of people that we would consider familiar to them. It might be the case that, just as some sociopaths experience no distress upon lying to someone, there might be some people capable of suppressing their own memories. Or some crimes might be committed in a state that interferes with the memory - it's heavily state-dependent, after all.

 

[Kerberos]

Is it because in the USA there is the 5th admendment with the phrase "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"?

I'm not sure that it could really be consideret testifying against yourself. Still I'm hardly an expert in interpretations of the American constitution.

More importantly, we wouldn't be able to determine why he responded strongly.

For example, he could have been framed. If this technique became widespread, people wouldn't be able to be informed of the evidence against them, as they might recognize it later. He might have seen similar images in a totally unrelated context. Some aspect of the presentation might be familiar to the person.

Therefore, people might respond to the information even though they didn't commit the crime.

You could test people before informing them of fx in which room the crime had been committed, and other facts which the killer should know. It's quite common to keep some information back from the public, to filter false confessions. You could also show a picture of the victim, if the accused doesn't know the victim, to see if there is a reaction. I'm not saying it would be conclusive, but it wouldn't necessarily be useless either. I suppose that it would be possible to set people up, by informing them of the "correct" answers in advance. Still I'm not sure you can automatically discard a form of evidence, because it is possible to manufacture it, after all it's also possible for the police to manipulate some of the evidence that is currently accepted.
Furthermore, it might be the case that some people could commit the crime and not respond as expected. For example, autistic people do not seem to "recognize" faces of people that we would consider familiar to them. It might be the case that, just as some sociopaths experience no distress upon lying to someone, there might be some people capable of suppressing their own memories. Or some crimes might be committed in a state that interferes with the memory - it's heavily state-dependent, after all. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I suppose that it would be possible to set people up, by informing them of the "correct" answers in advance. Still I'm not sure you can automatically discard a form of evidence, because it is possible to manufacture it, after all it's also possible for the police to manipulate some of the evidence that is currently accepted.

True, but you could set people up undetectably, without a trail of evidence. All you need to do is get the person to recognize the image. Showing it to them as brief flashes would probably do the trick.

 

[Timble]

It would be interesting to know what size of population the technique was tested on and whether it included people who might not show the anticipated response to a stimulus, as someone suggested earlier people somewhere along the autistic spectrum.

I also wondered if there was any attempt to induce false positives - planting memories - either by use of suggestion or surreptiously planted images, or whether it was simply assumed that you can't do this.

The testing by the FBI thing is a bit dubious because there's already been a selection process in recruiting FBI agents and you wouldn't expect many, if any FBI, agents to show reactions too far from the average.

It sounds interesting, but I wouldn't want to put my life on the line with relying on it to prove my innocence.

It'll also be interesting to see if it makes it to the UK, because polygraphs aren't admissible in English courts of law (I don't know about Scottish).

Where I expect it will find a home is in job recruitment, like some of the deeply suspect 'psychometric test' that some recruiters use.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

It'll also be interesting to see if it makes it to the UK, because polygraphs aren't admissible in English courts of law (I don't know about Scottish).

Where I expect it will find a home is in job recruitment, like some of the deeply suspect 'psychometric test' that some recruiters use.

I've worked in HR. Polygraphs just scare-off the amateurs, give insurance companies another rider in a contract and allow companies to say "There was no indication he'd steal if left alone...he passed a polygraph."

And it wouldn't work on the Scotts anyways, they lie like super-glued rugs and would throw off any testing curves.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Son of Phrenology

You are shown a picture of a horrific murder, your brain electro-squirms, and now you're guilty of having done it. (Not to mention the above-mentioned constitutional problems).

Hypothesis rejected. Next.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

But they're looking at the activation of regions of the brain associated with memory, not emotional responses.

I rather doubt the technique works reliably, but you're discarding it for the wrong reasons.

 

[Kerberos]

True, but you could set people up undetectably, without a trail of evidence. All you need to do is get the person to recognize the image. Showing it to them as brief flashes would probably do the trick. [/B]

I suppose that's true, still it's interesting if it actually works.

 

[scribble]

I've seen this technique used, and let me tell you, if you thought *finger*printing ink was hard to get off, you haven't seen anything.

 

[Darat]

I've seen this technique used, and let me tell you, if you thought *finger*printing ink was hard to get off, you haven't seen anything.

I thought "Brain Fingerprinting" would be a bit messy removing the scalp and skull, rolling the ink over the brain, getting the paper into place...

 

[dmarker]

I see several problems with brain fingerprinting.

First, most violent crimes are committed by people who are either aquaintances, friends, or relatives of the victim. Ergo the strongest suspects are the aquaintances, friends, and relatives of the victim. Showing them the crime scene won't work because they would just recognize the place that they've been before.

Second, many false confessions come from the police showing the suspect materials related to the crime. How do we know that the suspect isn't reacting to the memory of material shown to him by the police rather than the crime itself?

Third, the testing hasn't been extensive enough. Was it double blinded? Was a reasonable portion of the population represented? et.

 

[Donn]

First, most violent crimes are committed by people who are either aquaintances, friends, or relatives of the victim. Ergo the strongest suspects are the aquaintances, friends, and relatives of the victim. Showing them the crime scene won't work because they would just recognize the place that they've been before.

Looking at that article, it seems that the accused man (Jimmy Slaughter) did not recognize places he was very familiar with:-

"Jimmy Ray Slaughter did not know where in the house the murder took place; he didn't know where the mother's body was lying or what was on her clothing at the time of death - a salient fact in the case," says Dr Farwell.

However true or accurate is up for debate; but it's painted to seem like these "p300" waves are pretty selective about what they reveal.

Also, since this seems tied to seen images, could one not commit a crime wearing a set of funny-glasses that distort image and colour enough so that later-on any images shown you would not be recognized anyway?