123rf
Could brain scanning become a part of the criminal justice system?
It's been dubbed the biggest breakthrough in forensic investigation since DNA analysis - but a neuroscientist has a stark warning about the use of "brain fingerprinting" in the criminal justice system.
Brain fingerprinting is a controversial technique where scientists look into the minds of alleged criminals by using technology to measure a person's brainwave responses to information.
The basic premise is that investigators present a suspect with a piece of information about a crime that only the perpetrator will know and if their brainwaves respond in a certain way, that indicates they have knowledge of the crime.
Its use in three criminal cases in the US has led to a man confessing to murder and an innocent man being freed from prison after an accuser admitted lying.
READ MORE:
* The dangers of stronger DNA profiling laws
* Herpes linked to Alzheimer's in two major studies
* Under-fire Otago University law professor Mark Henaghan steps down
* Parents do have a favourite child and it's based on gender - study
* Born this way? Researchers explore the controversial science of gender identity
New Zealand legal academics have said the technology could be revolutionary and researchers at the University of Canterbury have been working with police and corrections to investigate how it could be used in the criminal justice system.
However, Otago University psychology professor Cliff Abraham urged caution was needed.
He said claims from proponents of a 100 per cent success rate were dubious: "There is hardly any published literature in peer reviewed journals to actually support the claims.
"It is mostly anecdotal and based on the claims of this person (from) data no one else has access to but him."
University of Canterbury law professor Robin Palmer has co-led research into the scientific validity and legal application of forensic brain scan analysis.
Palmerston North Crown prosecutor Emma Pairman was a student researcher at Canterbury University on a project which concluded more in-depth study was needed to confirm the reliability of the technique and replicate the results of US professor Lawrence Farwell who pioneered brain finger printing.
Pairman wrote in an article published by the New Zealand Law Society that on the face of it the technology seemed reliable.
She told Stuff any new technology came with concerns.
"A good example of the introduction of new technologies into the legal area is DNA evidence. DNA evidence was actually introduced into New Zealand quite late compared to other similar countries.
"When it was initially introduced I think it would be fair to say it was met with a healthy scepticism. However, I think nowadays most people consider DNA to be a very reliable forensic technique."
While Abraham said the science of scanning brainwaves stacked up, he had concerns about its use in the criminal justice system.
"The problem is, with all of these tests, they are mostly laboratory based so we are not dealing with, certainly not in the published literature, actual criminals and their crime scene information," he said.
Questions needed to be asked about how brain finger printing worked when used on people who were stressed, on drugs or were psychopaths.
"We should be sceptical of the claims and it should not go into the court system without, in my view, a thorough investigation and examination of the reliability and also whether people can have intentional countermeasures."
Sunday Star Times
