David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):9 – 20 (2008)
There is considerable interest in the use of neuroimaging techniques for forensic purposes. Memory detection techniques, including the well-publicized Brain Fingerprinting technique (Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc., Seattle WA), exploit the fact that the brain responds differently to sensory stimuli to which it has been exposed before. When a stimulus is specifically associated with a crime, the resulting brain activity should differentiate between someone who was present at the crime and someone who was not. This article reviews the scientific literature on three such techniques: priming, old/new, and P300 effects. The forensic potential of these techniques is evaluated based on four criteria: specificity, automaticity, encoding flexibility, and longevity. This article concludes that none of the techniques are devoid of forensic potential, although much research is yet to be done. Ethical issues, including rights to privacy and against self-incrimination, are discussed. A discussion of legal issues concludes that current memory detection techniques do not yet meet United States standards of legal admissibility.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
John J. B. Allen (2008). Not Devoid of Forensic Potential, But. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):27 – 28.
Pierre Pouget (2008). To Wink or to Blink: Technical Limits or Phenomenological Difficulties. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):32 – 34.
Ana Rosa Tenorio de Amorim (2008). Equality and Right to Development as Neuroethical Concerns: Assuring Defendants' Rights. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):28 - 30.
Similar books and articles
Jennifer L. Mnookin (2008). Of Black Boxes, Instruments, and Experts: Testing the Validity of Forensic Science. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 343-358.
Johanna C. van Hooff (2008). Neuroimaging Techniques for Memory Detection: Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Issues. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):25 – 26.
Steven E. Petersen & Adina L. Roskies (2001). Visualizing Human Brain Function. In E. Bizzi, P. Calissano & V. Volterra (eds.), Frontiers of Life, Vol Iii: The Intelligent Systems, Part One: The Brain of Homo Sapiens. Academic Press.
William G. Iacono (2008). The Forensic Application of "Brain Fingerprinting:" Why Scientists Should Encourage the Use of P300 Memory Detection Methods. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):30 – 32.
Paul Root Wolpe, Kenneth R. Foster & Daniel D. Langleben (2005). Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (2):39-49.
Russell S. Gold (2009). Evaluating Child Custody Cases : Techniques and Maintaining Objectivity. In Steven F. Bucky (ed.), Ethical and Legal Issues for Mental Health Professionals: In Forensic Settings. Brunner-Routledge. 69.
Joseph J. Fins, Judy Illes, James L. Bernat, Joy Hirsch, Steven Laureys & Emily Murphy (2008). Neuroimaging and Disorders of Consciousness: Envisioning an Ethical Research Agenda. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (9):3 – 12.
Osagie K. Obasogie & Troy Duster (2011). All That Glitters Isn't Gold. Hastings Center Report 41 (5):15-18.
Daniel Meegan (2008). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Neuroimaging Techniques for Memory Detection: Scientific, Ethical and Legal Issues". American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):1-4.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #89,440 of 1,410,532 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #178,988 of 1,410,532 )
How can I increase my downloads?