Several media shows have provided good promise for the use of MRI for truth, and lied detection. Why do we see so little evidence of any attempts to develop this technology? For complex cases like any murder case [ e.g. Laci Peterson case] it promises far simpler solutions than the ones in present use.
2007-03-29 06:34:43 · 3 answers · asked by George S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Hmmm, if you saw something in the media showing good promise that means that it IS being developed for that purpose. It's just not there yet. It will take a lot of testing to get it accepted as reliable. And then some use in court and having it stand up to challenge before it is adopted.
MRIs are pretty expensive. Plus you'd have to have MRI technician specially trained for forensic MRI. I can see the FBI using this first and then if it becomes very valuable, other juristiction may try it, but it will still be pretty expensive.
2007-03-29 07:28:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a tricky issue.
Most courts will not allow technology to be used in criminal proceedings, untill it has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community or has been used in several other legal proceedings.
So, until the device has been proven effective -- to a much higher standard that just "good promise" -- it doesn't meet the legal requirements for use of expert witnesses or new tech.
2007-03-29 06:39:29 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
are you talking about magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or something else?
2007-03-29 06:38:34 · answer #3 · answered by auditor4u2007 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋