测谎技术与证据法.docx
- 文档编号:27229901
- 上传时间:2023-06-28
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:27
- 大小:58.43KB
测谎技术与证据法.docx
《测谎技术与证据法.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《测谎技术与证据法.docx(27页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
测谎技术与证据法
NeuroscienceEvidence,LegalCulture,andCriminalProcedure
TableofContents
I.Introduction...............................................................................................302
II.NeuroscienceResearch..............................................................................306
A.Deception...........................................................................................307
1.Spenceetal.(2001).....................................................................307
2.Leeetal.(2002)..........................................................................308
3.Langlebenetal.(2002)................................................................309
4.Ganisetal.(2003).......................................................................309
B.PriorKnowledge................................................................................310
III.UnderstandingandEvaluatingtheNeuroscienceEvidence......................311
IV.ConstitutionalCriminalProcedure............................................................321
A.TheFourthAmendment.....................................................................325
B.TheSelf-IncriminationClause...........................................................328
1.NeuroscienceEvidenceandSelf-Incrimination..........................328
2.TheoreticalAccountsofthePrivilege.........................................333
C.DueProcess.......................................................................................336
V.Conclusion.................................................................................................337
I.Introduction
Wehumansatsomepointdevelopedthebiologicalcomplexityandlinguisticskillsnecessarytolieandtodeceive.Theabilitytodetectsuchactsreliablywouldundoubtedlybepowerfulevidenceinanylegalsysteminterestedinresolvingcontestedfactualdisputesaboutthepastinareliablemanner.Thetypicalwaytodetectsuchconductiswiththeevidencegeneratedoncepeopleareensnaredbyorforcedintothetangledwebtheyhavechosentoweave,asitwere.Someexamplesofthesetrapswouldincludewhenasuspectuttersstatementsthatcontradictreality,areinternallyinconsistent,orrevealdetailsknownonlytotheculprit,orwhenasuspectconfessesbecauseofguilt,toceaseinterrogation,oroutof(mis)perceivedselfinterest.Anotherway,whichisnowproposedbythenextwaveofliedetectiontechnology,wouldattempttolookforevidenceattheneurologicalsourceofsuchconduct.Currentneuroscienceisinvestigatingthepossibleneurologicalcorrelatesofdeceptivebehavior,andthesuccessofthisresearchcarrieswithitthepromiseofpowerfullegalevidenceintheformofreliableliedetection.Suchause,moreover,isoneofseveralproposedusesofsuchevidencediscussedinthelegalliterature.Othersincludepredictingcriminality,anddeterminingintentionsandstatesofmindgenerally,thevoluntarinessofacts,thepossiblebiasesofjudgesandjurors,andwhetherapersonisbraindead.
Despitetheseoftensanguine-tonedproposals,newtypesofevidenceraiseseriousconcernsforthelaw.Onetypeofconcerninvolvesseveralrelatedquestionsabouttheevidenceitself.Whatisthenatureofsuchevidence?
Whatareitsempiricallimitations?
Whatareitsconceptuallimitations?
Whatmayormaynotbelegitimatelyinferredfromit?
Willitfitwithinexistinglegalconceptsandpractices,and,ifso,how?
Orwillitalter,undermine,transform,ordestroysuchpractices,therebycausingaradicalshiftinlegalculture?
Withregardtoneuroscienceevidenceinparticular,HenryGreelyhasnotedthat“theinventionbyneuroscientistsofperfectlyorextremelyreliablelie-detectingortruth-compellingmethodsmighthavesubstantialeffectsonalmosteverytrialandontheentirejudicialsystem.”
Aseparatetypeofconcerninvolveshowsuchevidenceisgathered.All(perceived)valuableevidenceinvolvesthepotentialforoverzealous,andsometimesbarbarous,evidence-gatheringpractices.TheConstitutionplaceslimitsonsuchconductgenerally,butitisnotclearhowthecompelledgatheringoftheproposedneuroscientificevidencewouldfitwithextantconstitutionallimitations.Morebluntly—whencanthegovernmentforcedefendants(orsuspects,oranyoneforthatmatter)againsttheirwilltosubmittoatestthatmeasurestheworkingsoftheirbrainsforevidenceofliesordeception?
Wouldthisbelikecompellingabloodtest(andhencesubjecttotheFourthAmendment,butnottheFifthAmendmentprivilegeagainstself-incrimination),orwoulditbemorelikebeingforcedtotestify(andhencesubjecttotheprivilege)?
Bothtypesofconcernsarenotnewonesintheareaofliedetection.Thepolygraphhaspromptedsimilartheoreticalissues.Concernsaboutthedisastrouseffectsthatpolygraphevidencemaycausetothetrialprocess,andtoadjudicatorypracticesingeneral,haveledsometoquestionitsadmissibilityonthatground.AprominentproponentofthisviewisJusticeThomas,whoinanopinionconcludingthatdefendantsdonothaveaconstitutionalrighttopresentpolygraphevidence,arguedthatliedetectiontechnologywillusurp,oratleastproblematicallydiminish,thefact-finder’sroleinassessingcredibilitybycausingunduedeferencetothemachineandthetechnician.Forcriminalprocedure,appropriateconcernshavebeenraisedaboutcompellingsuspectstosubmittopolygraphexaminations.Forexample,theSupremeCourt’sdecisioninSchmerberv.California,whichheldthatcompelledbloodtestsarenotsubjecttotheprivilegeagainstself-incrimination,questionedandexpresseddoubtastowhetherthesamelogicshouldextendtopolygraphs.Theperceivedunreliabilityofpolygraphs,however,haslargelyallowedcourtstoavoiddealingwiththesetheoreticalissuesheadon.Commentatorsalsohavelargelyrefrainedfromattemptingtoresolvethem.Thustheuncertainreliabilityofpolygraphshasprovidedaconvenientexcusetobypasstheseissuesandconcerns.
Reliableneuroscience-basedliedetection,however,mayforcetheseissuesbacktothesurface,andcourtswillhavetoresolvethem.Andtheymayhavetodososoon.Neuroscience-basedliedetectorsarealreadybeingmarketedforlitigationpurposes,andtwocriminaldefendantshavealreadysoughttointroducesuchevidenceduringpost-convictionproceedings.Assumethatneuroscienceevidenceisshowntohavesufficientandascertainablereliabilitytosatisfyadmissibilitystandards,whatthen?
Shoulditstillbeexcludedbecauseofhowitmayaffecttrialpractices?
Orshoulditbeembracedforitspotentialtorevolutionizethosepracticesforthebetter?
Regardlessofadmissibility,howwillitaffectconstitutionalrights,evenifonlyusedasaninvestigativetool?
Isitlikeabloodsample?
Liketestimony?
Likeboth?
Orlikeneither?
Howthesequestionsareultimatelyresolvedcouldhavesignificantconsequencesforbothlegalcultureandthescopeofconstitutionalrights.Thusthetheoreticalissuesandconcomitantconcernsregardingthisevidencehaveconsiderablepracticalsignificance.
Thisarticleaddressestheseissuesandconcerns.Althoughthesearemyprimaryfocus,alongthewayIdiscussancillaryissuessuchastheadmissibilityandtheprobativevalueoftheproposedevidence.Mythesisisthat,whenproperlyunderstood(animportantqualification),thereisnothinguniquelyproblematicabouttheproposedneuroscienceevidence,andthatitscompelledproductionfallswithincoreconceptsanddoctrinesofboththeFourthAmendmentandtheSelf-IncriminationClause,andhenceoughtberegulatedbythem.Byreflectingonboththeevidenceandourcurrentpractices,Iwillexplainandhelptoclarifyhowtheformermaybeassimilatedintothelatter.
PartIIdescribesthepreliminaryneuroscienceresearchonthisissue.Theresearchinvolvestwodifferentkindsoftechnology:
experimentsusingfMRIteststocompareimagesofthebrainsofsubjectsduringtruthfulanddeceptiveacts,inordertolookfordifferencesinareasofbrainactivation;andsecond,researchusingatechniquereferredtoas“brainfingerprinting”thatusesEEGtestsofbrainwaveresponseswhensubjectsareshownscenicimagestomeasurewhetherpriorfamiliaritywiththeimagewillelicitadifferentbrainresponsethanunfamiliarity.
Next,PartIIIprovidesconceptualunderstandingofthenatureandsignificanceoftheproposedevidence.Thisunderstandinghelpstoclarifyandevaluateifandhowsuchevidencewouldfitwithcurrentlegalconceptsandpractices.Limitationsontheinferencesthisevidencecanandcannotlegitimatelysupportwillshowhowthisevidencewouldnotusurptheroleofthejuryandindeedmayassist(ratherthandiminish)thejuryinfulfillingitsfact-findingfunctions.Thisevidencewouldnotdiminishthejury’sroleanymorethanotheradmissibleevidencesuchasDNArandom-matchprobabilitiesorexperttestimonyregardingfalseconfessionsorwitnessidentifications.Theneuroscienceevidencewouldprovidesimilarchallenges(forexample,improvingjurorunderstandingofit)butthereisnothingqualitativelymoreproblematicabouttheneuroscienceevidenceintheseregards.
Tobesure,therearesignificantreasonstobeskepticalabouttheproposedneuroscienceevidence,andthosereasonsarediscussedbelow;however,aswithallexperttestimony,therealissueshouldnotbewhethertoadmitortoexcludeittoutcourtbuttoevaluatewhetherandwhenitcanassistrationaldecision-making.ThisPartisaimedatanalyzingtheevidenceinlightofthatgoal.
Finally,PartIVanalyzesandevaluateshowcompellingcriminalsuspectstosubmittosuchtestswouldaccordwithconstit
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 技术 证据法