I Can Read Your Mind...in Court?

Two words - Minority Report

So, how does this work for socialopaths? Or haven't they work that out yet.

p911

Right, I saw an article in Nature a couple years ago, about mind reading terrorist intentions. They conceded they could not distinguish a sociopath from a fighter pilot or a firefighter. People who have to put their emotions on hold, vs weeping out hysterically like a reality show contestant, don't have the brain pattern they consider "normal".

I'm not......with the over abundance of attorney's, they need the work so they can challenge it.

As several have stated that this is not foolproof and there would be a problem with sociopaths and individuals who are quilt ridden from the get-go, and about every little thing that happens around them (paranoid delusional and such). But I think the issue here is that it has nothing to do with whether it is viable or not, but that it can be used by those that would and do like to control the masses and tell them how and what to think. I can see this being used to frame people and as a tool to facilitate general witch hunts. Any time you take away the right of a person to think and feel as he wishes, or try to control or manipulate those liberties you are treading on holy rights. It is our individual responsibility to speak out against such offenses and and make known to governments and to those who appoint judges and make laws that this would be a violation of our Constitutional Rights to a fair trial by a jury of our peers. The place of a judge is to interpret the laws (outline by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution) of the State in which the trial takes place, not to determine whether someone is innocent or guilty.

Methods that appear to be scientific when they are not are the perfect means of "framing people" or "general witch hunts" like you said. They have no place in a democracy.

In Wolpe's paper linked above and reviewed in this video, figures are presented that show conventional lie detectors had a 10% failure rate in people who lied 50% of the time, and a 20% failure rate in people who lied only 1% of the time.
The more truthful you are, the higher the failure rate. It's clearly biased against the innocent. No wonder it's not allowed in court.

According to the wiki, MRI lie detection claimed a 78% success rate. That's not good enough for court. They made a further claim, that they could increase that success rate to 90% by extensively studying the subject's thought patterns with MRI.

90% is still not enough to rule out reasonable doubt. But the concept of extensively studying the suspect to improve the prediction rate is seriously flawed. The persons promoting the test have an interest in boosting the score. Allowing them more extensive access to the subject is a gross violation of human rights - for nothing - and providing an opportunity for self-interested fraud and the "witch hunt".

That's over and above the fact the persons administering and evaluating these tests are not even professionally bound by scientific reporting standards. I'd say the justice system would be better off calling the industry's bluff for all of their uses of diagnostic imaging in forensic matters. Where's the forensic protocol for any such application and report? Not at the American or Candian Radiology Associations.

I am not guilty of most things - however I would not want anyone to know all my thoughts.

And what if your wife was to get one of those machines?

You might be having a really bad day then your boss just chewed you out - and he could read your mind?

I would doubt that such a machine will ever be truly reliable (hopefully), therefore will not be permitted in court.

The theorem that no two finger prints are alike is just that a theory, but is accepted as Gospel fact by almost everyone. Lie detctors have proved to be fualty and are not accepted in most courts.

It will be to a point when an article will claim, After you are born a DNA test will deteremined that you will commit a serious crime by the time you are 21.........

I wish it was a joke. But biological determinists are all too real. The whole focus on genetics gives them a place to lurk, and an opportunity to stoke their political agendas in the guise of science. Yes, there are "scientists" who hope to find "criminality" in the genome. That would allow them to criminalize whole families (or even races). There are also "scientists" who believe they can localize criminality in the brain - they are looking for criminal anatomy. Maybe a "lesion" or something they have means to put there themselves, in this day and age. How convenient.

The people who want to use science to support a persecutory agenda against the innocent - including the supposed "mind reading" - are the same ones who can't handle the genuine test of science, and who gloss over the inadequacy of the experimental results. They are more comfortable with fraud because they cannot bear any challenge to their delusional hatreds and obsessions.

Personally I would like to have a look at the brains, EEG's, MRI's and genes of the determinists and wannabe "mind readers", and see how they measure up

They are currently looking into testing (Healthwise) to see if your insurable

Maybe there's an up side to the Obama health plan...

Otherwise we are just going to have to pull natural medicine up by the boots and make it free or diy.

Otherwise we are just going to have to pull natural medicine up by the boots and make it free or diy.

Thanks to big Pharms..they like to make everything a disease.....that way you can not even say vitamins are good for you.

p911

With no offense intended to legitimate and genuine medical doctors (of which I am sure there are many still struggling to do an honest job) medicine in this day and age is more of a syndicate than a profession. Imagine a self-regulating brotherhood where your first duty is to protect your brothers, not to serve your patients, and where your education and role is to dispense the drugs provided by big pharma, and lap up the pharma gravy if you're so inclined. That's what it looks like from this end.

Imagine a self-regulating brotherhood where your first duty is to protect your brothers,

You mean like the bar is to attorneys

ha ha. I guess this chat has come full circle... back to the murky waters of the justice system.

The Greek from which we obtain "pharmacist" is pharmakeus and literally means "poisoner".

Just thought I'd mention it, no aspersions meant to be cast

how.....appropriate