## The Brain's Telling the Truth--Scanners Intervening in Justice (September 2008)

## The Brain's Telling the Truth--Scanners Intervening in Justice (September 2008)

In 2008, the introduction of brain-scanning technology into the judicial systems of countries around the world was the focus of much attention. In Japan and India, two countries with different legal cultures, "brain testimonies" were beginning to be treated as evidence in their own ways.

The New York Times reported on the problem of the bias toward confessions in Japan's criminal justice system. Confessions have long been regarded as important evidence in a society where lengthy interrogations and interrogations conducted behind closed doors have become the norm. However, confessions are not always the truth, and false convictions have frequently become a problem. Against this background, researchers are using brain-scanning technology to analyze the brain activity of suspects and scientifically verify whether their testimony is based on their memories. As the technology matures, it has the potential to deter false convictions, but at the same time, there is a need for careful debate about the invasion of privacy and the reliability of the technology.

Meanwhile, in India, brain scans have been used in a real court case to prove a woman named Aditi Sharma was found guilty of poisoning her ex-fiancé, Reason magazine reported. The trial used EEG technology to detect whether a suspect's brain responds to information presented to it as "experiential memory. By recording the brain's response to a crime-related sentence, the test was able to determine whether or not the suspect knew the information as an "experiential memory". Sharma himself volunteered to take the test, and the data was ultimately used as the basis for his conviction.

However, the technology has also raised many questions. How and by whom are the brainwave changes interpreted and whether they are really "proof of memory"? And is it really ethically permissible to look inside the brain without the person's consent? In addition to the weak scientific evidence, deep concerns have been expressed about the principles of human rights and law.

The use of such brain-scanning technology in court remains limited in the United States and European countries, and sufficient verification and ethical development are essential. Nevertheless, there is no end to the movement by the judiciary to seek the "truth" with the help of science, and an era in which the possibilities and dangers of this approach intersect is beginning to unfold as the technology advances.

How will the courts hear what the brain is telling them? This is a new challenge for the judiciary in the 21st century, and an experiment at the forefront of the complex intertwining of science and ethical systems.