The use of increasingly more advanced methods in the commission rate of crimes has necessitated the development of new solutions and tools to investigate them. Usually the offender results in no traces of physical data. Brain mapping strategy seeks to address the problem of insufficient availability of physical evidence to look for the complicity of a suspect. It is one of the world of cognitive psychophysiology and is based on an examination of how a person's brain techniques information.
So even if no fingerprints, DNA specimens etc. are discovered at the picture of the crime, the info stored in the brain of the offender is actually available for assessment. The different ways in which the brain reacts to different stimuli may be used to detect whether a person has information associated with the crime stored in his brain. The test does not establish the guilt or innocence of any suspect. It basically attempts to identify the absence or presence of certain crime related information in the brain. Thus the aim of the test is to defeat deception. It can potentially be used in a much broader range of situations than any of the presently established medical methods.
However, the test is fraught with controversy. Doubts are being raised concerning its constitutionality given the fact so it compels the brain of any accused to give involuntary responses which might end up being incriminatory. Also in question is the trustworthiness of the test in showing the complicity of a person. Should the results of the test then be admitted as information in court if so, what should be the probative value of such data? This paper endeavours to handle these and other related concerns.
With the crime graph climbing up a steep rate, the police interrogation techniques play a vital role in extracting the truth from the think. A number of the popular interrogation methods are the use of hypnosis, real truth serum, voice analysis, fingerprint trials, handwriting proof and DNA examination. The clinical tools of interrogation namely- the Rest detector or the Polygraph test, the P300 or the mind Mapping ensure that you the Narcoanalysis or the reality Serum test are the main three tests which have been recently developed for extracting confessions. These psychoanalytical assessments are also used to interpret the behaviour of the unlawful (or the think) and corroborate the looking into officers' observations.
It is believed that if one is administered a drug which suppresses his reasoning vitality without affecting memory space and speech, he is able to be made to tell the truth. Some drugs have been found to generate this 'twilight point out' in some individuals. These drugs are being administered in a few countries including India. The word narcoanalysis was presented in 1936 for the utilization of narcotics to generate a trance like point out wherein the person is put through various queries. Under the influence of the drug, the topic talks freely and is also purportedly deprived of his self-control and can power to change his answers. The underlying theory is that a person can lie by using his imagination. Within the narcoanalysis test, the subject's imagination is neutralized and reasoning faculty afflicted by making him semi-conscious. The subject is not able to speak up on his own but can answer specific and simple questions. In such a state it becomes quite difficult for him to lie and his answers would be limited to facts he is already aware of. His answers are spontaneous as a semi-conscious person is unable to change his answers.
Truth serums (or sera) are no serum by any means. They may be drugs sometimes used clinically. Some of the most widely known drugs are Seconal, Hyoscine (scopolamine), Sodium Pentothal, Sodium Amytal, Phenobarbital. Most commonly used drug for truth serum test is an anesthetic and sedative drug, Soduium Pentothal which when administered intravenously can make a person garrulous and confessional. Injected in constant small dosages it has a hypnotizing influence on a person whop responds loquaciously when questioned. The narcoanalysis test is conducted by combining 3 grams of Sodium Pentothal or Sodium Amytal dissolved in 3000 ml of distilled water. With regards to the person's sex, time, health and physical condition, this concoction is implemented intravenously along with 10% of dextrose over an interval of 3 time with the aid of an anaesthetist. Incorrect dosage can send the subject into coma or even cause death. The rate of supervision is controlled to drive the accused slowly but surely into a hypnotic trance. The effect of the biomolecules on the bio-activity of a person is obvious as the drug depresses the central stressed system, lowers blood circulation pressure and slows the heart rate, putting the topic into a hypnotic trance resulting in a insufficient inhibition.
The subject matter is then interrogated by the investigating agencies in the presence of the doctors. The revelations made during this stage are registered both in video recording and audio tracks cassettes. The record prepared by professionals is what can be used in the process of collecting research. This process is conducted in federal government hospitals after having a court docket order is passed instructing the doctors or hospital authorities to perform the test. Personal consent of the subject is also required.
It can be an examination, which is dependant on an assumption that there surely is an interaction between your body and mind and is conducted by various components or the sensors of your polygraph machine, which are attached to the body of the person who is interrogated by the expert. The device records the blood circulation pressure, pulse rate and respiration and muscle moves.
Polygraph test is conducted in three stages- a pretest interview, chart tracking and diagnosis. The examiner (a medical or legal psychologist) prepares a set of test questions depending upon the relevant information about the case provided by the investigating officer, like the legal charges against the individual and statements created by the suspect. The subject is questioned and the reactions are assessed. A baseline is made by requesting questions whose answers the investigators know. Lying by a suspect is associated with specific, perceptible physiological and behavioural changes and the sensors and a influx pattern in the graph expose this. Deviation from the baseline is taken as an indicator of lie. All these reactions are corroborated with other research gathered.
The polygraph test was among the first scientific testing to be utilized by the interrogators.
This test was developed and patented in 1995 by neurologist Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell, Director and Chief Scientist "Brain Wave Research", IOWA. In this technique, called the "Brain-wave finger printing"; the accused is first interviewed and interrogated to find out whether he is concealing any information. Then sensors are mounted on the subject's mind and the individual is sitting before some type of computer monitor. He is then shown certain images or made to hear certain sounds. The sensors screen electrical activity in the brain and enroll P300 waves, that happen to be generated only when the topic has reference to the stimulus i. e. picture or audio. The subject is not asked any questions.
Dr. Farwell has shared a MERMER (Memory space and Encoding Related Multifaceted
Electro Encephalographic Response) is set up in the accused when his brain recognizes noteworthy information regarding the crime. These stimuli are called the "target stimuli". The bottom line is, Brain finger printing test fits information stored in the mind with information from the crime world. Studies show that an innocent suspect's brain would not have stored or registered certain information, which an actual perpetrator's brain would have stored.
The Forensic Research Lab in Bangalore is the first center in India which conducts the Brain-mapping or Brain-finger printing test. In USA, the FBI has been utilizing "Brain mapping technique" to convict criminals.
Early in the 20th century, medical doctors began to hire scopolamine along with morphine and chloroform, to generate circumstances of "twilight sleeping" during childbirth. Scopolamine was recognized to produce sedation and drowsiness, bafflement and disorientation, incoordination and amnesia for occasions experienced during intoxication.
In 1922 it took place to Robert House, a Dallas Texas Obstetrician that a similar technique might be used in the interrogation of suspected criminals, and he established to interview under scopolamine two prisoners in the Dallas county prison whose guilt appeared clearly confirmed. Beneath the drug, both men denied the charges on which they were held; and both, after trial, were found not guilty. Thus, Robert House figured a patient consuming scopolamine "cannot generate a rest and there is no capacity to think or reason". His experiment and this realization attracted huge attention, and the idea of a
truth drug was thus launched on the general public consciousness.
The key phrase "Truth Serum" is believed to have made an appearance first, in the news statement of Robert House's experiment the LA Record, sometime in 1922. Robert House thereafter came to be known as the 'Father of Fact Serum'.
The advice that drugs might assist in communication with emotionally disturbed patients first camequite by accident in 1916, when Arthur S. Lovenhart and his affiliates at the University or college of Wisconsin were tinkering with breathing stimulants. At about this time, law enforcement officials still fascinated by the probability that drugs will help in the interrogation of suspects and witnesses turned to a category of depressant drugs known as the Barbiturates. Barbiturates were first synthesized in 1903 and are on the list of oldest of modern drugs.
By 1935 Clarence W. Muehlberger, head of the Michigan Crime Detection Lab at East Lansing, was using barbiturates on reluctant suspects, though authorities work continued to be hampered by the courts' rejection of drug induced confessions except in a few carefully circumscribed cases.
Three of the barbiturates which are being used in narcoanalysis and have seen service as truth drugs are sodium amytal (anobarbital), pentothal sodium (thiopental), and a lesser magnitude seconal (seconbarbital). During the Second World Battle, the technique of the so called truth serum originated to help military who had broken down under any risk of strain of battle. Steadily a useful mental first-aid strategy was developed which helped the unconscious to show its secret as the individual was consuming the narcotic. It had been during this time that Sodium Pentothal was first used as a "truth drug".
The uses of narcoanalysis drugs are two fold- they are used as "truth drugs" in law enforcement officials work and also found in the accepted psychiatric practice of narcoanalysis. The difference in the two procedures lies in their different objectives. The police inspection can be involved with empirical real truth that may be used against the suspect, and therefore almost solely with probative fact. The usefulness of the suspect's revelations depends ultimately on the acceptance in data by a courtroom of regulation. The psychiatrist, on the other palm, using the same "truth drugs" in diagnosis and treatment of the mentally unwell, is primarily worried about psychological truth rather than empirical simple fact.
While S. 53 of the Code of Offender Procedure enables the authorities to get an accused medically evaluated, where there are acceptable grounds to believe that such evaluation would afford facts as to the commission of the offence, the same needs to be done at the mercy of the constitutional guard enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution and accordingly the accused can't be compelled to be a see against himself.
The courts have been called upon to adjudicate on the constitutionality of medical and scientific lab tests on several events. In Talk about of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the court ruled that "to be a witness" under Article 20(3) methods to "furnish information" which phrase doesn't have to be utilized in a larger sense to be able to include the giving of thumb impressions, specimens of handwriting or exposing an integral part of the body for id. Hence such examinations were allowed.
However, the judge went on to state that Article 20(3) is violated when the accused who has personal understanding of facts imparts that knowledge through oral or written statements. In providing his thumb impressions et al, the accused is not providing any 'personal testimony' because the impressions, regardless of work at concealing their true aspect by dissimulation, cannot change their intrinsic persona.
It is submitted that brain mapping does not satisfy the above mentioned test in its entirety being using respects different from fingerprinting and handwriting tests. In brain mapping, the accused is imparting personal understanding of facts. It isn't the information stored in the mind that has been extracted however the response of the brain to certain information that has been fed to it. Although responses being accumulated from the mind are unchanging in the sense that they would continually be the same for the same insight, the accused has been made to react to that suggestions. Further unlike thumb impressions and handwriting the replies of the mind are not of your intrinsic characteristics.
The test is comparable to convincing an accused to give certain home elevators oath. That is so because the accused has been forcibly devote a situation where he cannot lie and certain information has been put to him, and he cannot help but respond to it, even though the response is not by means of written or dental statements. However, the response given in a brain mapping test may be said to be a declaration in the sense which it adopts some bits of the information, and not others, by making a positive response to it.
The constitutionality of the test has however been upheld by a few of the High Courts. In Ramchandra Ram memory Reddy v. Status of Maharashtra, the court docket said that Article 20(3) is a safeguard against testimonial compulsion which is invoked regarding a declaration by the accused against himself. In brain mapping the result of the test is a map demonstrating re-actions of the brain to certain concentrate on questions and hence there is no statement. The test was further justified on the ground that the conclusions of the test are not incriminatory; they just show if the accused has information of the crime or not.
The latter area of the argument is comparable to that used regarding fingerprinting test etc. by Justice Das Gupta in his concurring opinion in Kathi Kalu Oghad. Relating to him, the data of specimen handwriting, thumb impressions or other impressions is incriminatory only once on comparision with certain other handwriting or impressions an individuality is established between your two. Independently they do not incriminate the accused person, or even tend to accomplish that. Hence, in giving them even although accused may be furnishing information but it is not against himself.
It is submitted that argument may be valid in the case of fingerprinting but is inapplicable to brain mapping. Matching to its proponents, brain mapping is particularly useful in those situations where no physical research is obtainable - for case, fingerprints lifted from the world of offense. The record in the mind of the offender will always be available. Here there is absolutely no external comparision between two specimens. It is the brain that is making the comparision between proof (in the form of information) received from the landscape of criminal offenses and the knowledge of the accused. Thus it is the brain of the accused that is furnishing all the data against him.
In Dinesh Dalmia v. State by SPE, CBI the judge reasoned that the test will not total breaking the silence of the accused by push because even though he is taken to the lab against his will, the genuine revelation through the test is voluntary. It was also detected that unless such exams are conducted the looking into agency may struggle to come up with clinching evidence from the accused. It really is submitted that reasoning is flawed as the revelation throughout a brain mapping test is not voluntary. The responses which are used for generating the map are completely involuntary the accused having no control over their emission.
The need for the test for investigation purposes cannot be used to justify it if it's often not permissible. It is submitted that brain mapping is violative of the protection under the law of the accused person under Article 20(3). Unlike other proven methods of evaluation like DNA profiling, fingerprinting, handwriting research et al it needs an optimistic response from the accused.
The brain mapping technique is based on the scientific idea that during waking times the brain gets and classifies many signals, received in various sensory modalities, depending after their marriage with existing knowledge and experience. This classification or encoding process differs whenever a person directly participates in or encounters the event from when he gets to find out about it from secondary sources. Accordingly, when information relating to the ex - is fed involved with it, the brain would be activated differently than regarding the latter. Consequently, if one has participated in the criminal offense, the responses he would give to criminal offense related information would vary from those given by a person wholly unconnected with it when subjected to the same inputs.
The information used to evoke a reply is split into irrelevants (or neutral), focuses on and probes. Focuses on contain information which established fact to the subject and they are being used to obtain a baseline brain response (MERMER ) which is often used for comparision with reactions generated to criminal offense relevant information to be able to see if that is evenly popular. Irrelevants, that are not related to the case, are used to establish another baseline - to ascertain if the information is absent. Probes, being the most significant, relate to those areas of the offense which only someone who has devoted a criminal offense would be in a position to learn. This area of the information is kept completely confidential.
Before the test is done, there can be an interactive program with the topic where he's offered the list of goals and irrelevants. On this verification process, the suspect is asked if any of the irrelevants are of particular relevance to him so that those may be removed from the list, else they might show "information present. " He's also advised that he would have to press the right button whenever a target is shown. This ensures that the topic is concentrating on the info that is being presented.
Further, the probes are identified to the subject without revealing him about the real insight. This contextualizes the info being presented as a probe. Describing the probes also helps to find out whether the subject already knows about that information - for example he may have come to know about the murder weapon from the police. If this is the case, then both legal and the innocent person would test positive with respect to that information. So such probes aren't presented.
For the real test electrodes are located on the top of the topic and a four route EEG amplifier is used to get the signals. Every time a probe or a goal is presented the brain generates an Event Related Probable (ERP) response. P300 is one element of this ERP which is associated with concealed information. An ERP is diagnosed through an averaging process that eliminates all activity which is not time locked to the stimulus, and along with it other complicated habits associated with information processing are taken away as well.
Through a fresh evaluation (MERA ) multiple facets of the info can be analysed simultaneously, rather than obtaining just an ERP, as regarding the earlier process. Dr. Farwell has determined a specific multifaceted electroencephalographic response called MERMER which is given out by the subject if the stimulus is specially significant. MERMER consists of not simply P300 but also some other components which increase the statistical reliability of the test.
The MERMER elicited in response to the probes are then set alongside the baselines. If they're nearer to the baseline response for goals then it implies that information related to the probes was present while if they are closer to the irrelevants it indicates that the info was absent. A software is utilized to determine the statistical confidence in the effect. Dr. Farwell promises brain mapping can provide results with a statistical assurance of 99. 9%.
Firstly, in India rather than a four route EEG, a 32 channel one is used. So while Dr. Farwell records responses from only four areas namely - midline frontal, central, and parietal locations on the brain, and a location on the forehead to track eye activities, in India the response has been documented from 32 details - 30 of these cephalic, the other two being vertical and horizontal eyes movements. Which means that alerts encoded in response to not simply visible or auditory inputs but other factors like physical experience etc. can even be accessed for the purposes of evoking a reply. In this value the Indian technology is more complex than the American one.
Secondly, in India only the P300 component is employed for analysing the response. In the U. S. also only P300 part was being considered before Dr. Farwell uncovered MERMER which is meant to give more correct results. However, he has copyrighted the knowledge with respect to MERMER has hence it is unavailable for use by the general public.
On the other hands, use of MERMER suffers from a limitation in that it requires the subject to sit down still, or else it is difficult to accumulate the data. It is because the filtering of response in MERMER is significantly less than regarding ERP. Artifacts induced by minor moves can be eradicated in data evaluation but the subject cannot make major activities. Dr. Malini also argues that even though much more waves are being produced in MERMER tests yet Dr. Farwell is not able to find a use for some of them.
Thirdly, in India the accused is not required to press any buttons in response to the information presented to him. The subject is just asked to relax, close his eye and listen, if the source is in auditory form, and to watch the pictures using the pc display. Thus, unlike in the U. S. , in India nothing is done to ensure that the topic pays attention to the information being presented to his brain. It is possible that he might become sidetracked or may completely tune out. Further, the topic is retained in a separate sound proof room during the test. No one would know if he is not taking a look at the screen.
The problem is further aggravated by the actual fact that the baseline EEG and ERP responses are not used with all the care such as the U. S. Relating to Dr. Malini, set up a baseline EEG with eyes closed and open up are taken to evaluate the normal activities. Inside the U. S. two baselines are used - someone to measure the response when the topic is particularly well informed about something and the other for situations where the subject matter was unconcerned with the suggestions. So that it is much easier to compare whether the subject knows about the probes or not.
Also, the baseline is computed for normal activities with sight closed and available. This means that if the topic is not taking a look at the display but staring someplace else, his brain would continue to give the baseline response and he would test negative for the information. In case the baselines should be computed using his response for the type of irrelevant information that is going to be given to him, the tester would be able to detect when the subject tunes out as the response would then go below the baseline for irrelevants.
Fourthly, in India a polygraph test is also done during the interactive session to check on whether the subject is lying. That is supposed to be helpful in deciding the probes to be utilized. However, it again increases questions of constitutionality of the test, especially so because the topic is being obligated to make dental statements.
Dr. Farwell acknowledges that brain mapping might not exactly be helpful in a number of situations. The test only detects the occurrence or lack of information. Hence, it can be used and then place the person at the field of crime. Where two suspects were present at the world of crime, but the crime was such that only one person would have determined it, the test would be inapplicable as information would be there in the brains of both the suspects. The test would not have the ability to distinguish between the witness and the perpetrator.
Similarly, because the test does not indicate how the information got into the brain, it cannot be found in those situations where the person possesses everything by virtue of various other truth than being the perpetrator. For instance, the investigators may throughout research have divulged all the available information, or due to the passage of time the public may have become increasingly more alert to details, particularly if the crime acquired received extensive advertising coverage. However, Dr. Malini emphatically refutes this point. She feels that the response of 1 who actually committed the crime would continually be not the same as that of somebody who merely witnessed it.
Secondly, the test wouldn't normally be definitive where in fact the investigators do not have sufficient information about the crime. Then there would not be adequate information against that your understanding of the suspect can be tested.
Thirdly, the test can't be used where in fact the suspect is suffering from a mental disease because he would not be able to process the info the same way as a normal person. There is a possibility that it could not be employed by habitual offenders also. Further, it is thought that if the topic is under the influence of certain drugs at the time of the test, his memory space may be infected.
Fourthly, the test is frustrating and takes a properly trained expert who is able to do considerable detective are well. Dr. Farwell seems that if brain mapping should be used extensively, it will necessitate a shift in the way crimes are looked into and will need a trained expert to focus on the truth from enough time the investigation starts off so that he may identify the correct information and keep it private till the test is performed.
Fifthly, it's been seen that P300 is a good index of recognition, but an indirect index of deception. When a person denies any knowledge of the murder weapon but nonetheless provides P300 response, it generally does not lead to an infallible inference that the person is lying but merely indicates that for some reason the weapon is special or recognizable by him. It may be because he offers a similar one himself, or has comprehensive knowledge of guns generally.
This issue has not yet been talked about by the Courts. However, the next factors detract from the consistency of the test. First of all, the test is situated of the storage of the accused. However, memory space is not a passive repository of stored images. It really is being constantly recreated and reconstructed. Also, the recollection of a crime may be absent due to various reasons. There isn't enough literature on how memory is developed throughout a crime. Further, there is the opportunity of "false memory" due to which a person can report a stunning memory that is in fact quite fake. Dr. Farwell admits these problems but defends the test by drawing an analogy with witness accounts which regardless of being a function of storage area enjoy appreciable probative value. [All these things can be further researched- like what exactly is the concept of false memory-how it works etc. ]
Secondly, the test is highly subjective. The research of brain fingerprinting will not give any clue in regards to what information should be tested. The selection of the probes relies solely on the skill and judgment of the investigator. Such a subjective method paves method for the opportunity of producing "false positives" and "wrong negatives. " Dr. Dochin advises a hypothetical situation where this might happen. On being shown pictures of men and women present at the scene of crime, the topic may give a P300 response because perhaps the people shown resembled some close family of his.
Also, Dr. Farwell admits that there is always a degree of uncertainty in the process of selection of probes. For instance, on locating a gun next to the corpse the investigator may feel that it's the murder weapon. But there's a probability that the shot was fired by a different gun from that found. The latter may have been planted there.
The admissibility of brain mapping has been considered favourably by simply one court docket in the U. S. - an area Judge in Iowa. Your choice in that case was eventually overruled and the Supreme Courtroom refused to consider the issue. In India some lower courts have deliberated over it but to time no High Court has mentioned it. Inside the absence of a definite ruling on the problem, it is vital to apply the assessments for the admissibility of methodical evidence to ascertain if the data is admissible.
In the U. S. there are two tests of admissibility - Frye and Daubart. The Frye test requires "general approval" of the methodical rule or discovery which sorts the foundation of the expert thoughts and opinions, in the particular field to which it belongs. This test has been criticized to be vague. Also, it does not make dependability of the technique a pre-requisite for admissibility. Most of the States have now starting using the Daubart test which is more versatile.
The Daubart test shifted the concentrate from "general popularity. " It continued to be another factor but was no longer required. The other factors to be considered were - if the strategy or theory has been (or can be) tested, whether it has been put through peer review and publication, and the rate for error. The court managed to get clear these were merely flexible guidelines and that the majority of other factors may have a bearing on the admissibility of a method.
It is not clear what standards the Indian Courts make an application for admitting scientific information. In one case where in fact the admissibility of DNA fingerprinting evidence was called into question, the courtroom relied on two factors - "general acceptance" by the methodical community and the overall trustworthiness of the test, if properly performed. Equal weightage appears to have been directed at both requirements, unlike in the case of Frye or Daubart. In another circumstance the Supreme Courtroom discussed both Frye and Daubart testing without stating whether either of these was applicable in India, or whether there was some other test that needs to be applied.
P300 is a broadly accepted and recorded phenomenon. It has been approved in so many peer reviews that it can be almost be said to be beyond dispute. [can research on this point-how P300 has been received] Consequently brain mapping founded exclusively on the use of P300 would probably satisfy the necessity of "general acceptance. " Further, the prospect of mistake is low consequently is obtained only when the findings motivate very high statistical self-assurance. Hence brain mapping based on just P300 would be admissible under both Frye and Daubart lab tests. It should be admissible in India as well.
However, the admissibility of Dr. Farwell's MERMER technique, which is a new development, is quite debatable. That is definitely not admissible under the Frye test at the moment because it has not yet been analyzed or researched by the broader technological community and hence cannot be thought to have obtained "general popularity. " The positioning under the Daubart test is ambiguous. Though the technique itself is not subjected to much peer review, P300 is an essential component of it. It is possible to argue that because the Daubart rules are said to be flexible, the actual fact that MERMER has been neither peer researched nor acquired standard acceptance, should not be fatal to its admissibility as evidence because the essential root method P300 complies with these two requirements.
It is submitted that even if the constitutionality of the brain mapping test is broadly upheld by the courts, the test lacks the to be utilized on an extremely wide scale. It is being touted as a uncomplicated, convenient and effective test to determine the innocence of suspects at an early on level of the exploration itself. Quite simply, it has been sought to be utilized as a screening test. Such utilization is beset with sensible difficulties.
The test requires highly trained experts. Hence you will see the expense of training them in large numbers. Also, unique stimuli have to be identified for each subject, which requires extensive exploration. The test is highly dangerous if the probes chosen are wrong. Some of the accused may go the test while an innocent person may become embroiled in investigation. It can toss the investigators from the right keep tabs on.
The test has been presented to be reliable in conditions of indicating if the subject matter has certain information or not. But it is incredibly unreliable because there is no chance of knowing why the info is there in the individuals brain. Hence, the test shouldn't be made admissible as evidence. Even if it's made admissible, it ought to be allowed only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of tedious, as has been done in India now. Here the experts are simply considering the witness accounts in identifying the probes. It is submitted that this significantly compromises the dependability of the test because the research is not being done properly.
Even if done properly, the test will usually contain an element of uncertainty and can have extremely low probative value. On the whole, the method is not as useful as it has been projected to be. Far more research must be done prior to the test can be used as facts.