The Scientist reports that according to a new Royal Society study, the emerging discipline of law and neuroscience may not be the magic technology that detects lies, at least not as far as the courtroom is concerned. fMRI scans seem to assist in identifying deceptive people. But figuring out whether someone is telling "the truth" if that person believes he is being truthful, has always been a problem, since such witnesses are credible. Their testimony simply differs from the facts. Thus, if the witness believes he is recounting actual events, even his version differs from what happened, and fMRI scans don't seem to help much, if at all, in identifying that witness.
The study, called Brain Waves and Law, is part of a larger project which examines the larger area of neuroscience and society and policy.
As far as neuroscience in court goes, the study notes that many lawyers and judges have no training in the science on which neuroscience is based and do not understand its applications and limitations. Undergraduates do not learn how law and neuroscience applies in society. Lawyers and scientists do not have a systematic or official way to work together to discuss research in the field. More information, including links to a press briefing and the report in pdf, e-reader, and Kindle versions, is available here.
The Royal Society study seems to confirm what other studies have been suggesting for a while. See this blog's index term "neuroscience" for more posts.
Comments