1. Falls 1
Sarah Falls
Professor Hinman
PHIL334: NeuroEthics
13 May 2014
Final Exam Paper: Law & NeuroEthics
In 2009, Leslie Stahl of CBS’ 60 Minutes completed an incredibly important episode
report for the time on what the network called ‘Mind Reading’. In the video that was presented
about 5 years ago, we see the emergence of fMRI imaging being used as a sort of thought
locater. Nothing like this had been conveyed to a general audience before on such a large scale
as a highly viewed television series on a popular network like CBS, so the buzz surrounding the
then new information was significant. In the early stages of fMRI imaging, we already are able
to witness through this video the ethical nature surrounding the idea of it being used to
essentially read people’s minds. The specific issue that captured my attention in the video was
the idea of whether this type of brain imaging should be used in instances where we may in a
way convict ourselves of our own crimes, perhaps without our own willingness such as in court
cases. Although this video posed such serious questions as this at the mere birth of this
revolution, these questions are still very pertinent today. With the presented videos and articles
provided in our NeuroEthics course I will explain these serious ethical questions as well as my
view, and the ramifications of that stance, on brain imaging.
Compared to five years since the airing of the episode, technology has made serious
progress in ‘reading’ a person’s mind as hypothesized by the doctor in the CBS episode,
although maybe not to the exact point of being able to read a complex thought within seconds as
he had stated. Jack Gallant has shown just how far fMRI imaging had come just two years later

2. Falls 2
with his videos of movie reconstruction from brain activity in various humans. In the videos we
see a side by side contrast of the actual video footage and the reconstructed images used from the
data from the fMRI scans. These reconstructed images are not completely clear, but they
initially give the viewer an almost eerie feeling with their accuracy in movement, shapes, and
sizes of objects on screen. This sort of reconstruction may be able to be used in the future in
terms of people who may be suspects in some sort of court case. Presented in the Mind Reading
video by CBS, a woman in India had already been convicted of murdering her fiancé after
having had EEG brain scans done that were supposed to have indicated that she knew the
circumstances surrounding the poisoning of her lover. If this could be done five years ago, who
knows what actions might take place in other countries around the world regarding brain imaging
within the next couple of years alone, which puts us all in a spot of questioning and consideration
of our family’s future as well as our own.
One of the main ethical questions surrounding brain imaging in the U.S. is whether or not
this could be considered a violation of a person’s rights. The 5th Amendment states we have the
right of not having to testify against ourselves in court, but there’s an issue with this when it
comes to brain imaging. Scans or images that result from our brain activity could either be
considered a product of a non-physical, private, right-to-be-hidden mind, or simply a biological
indication of your innocence or guilt made available by advanced brain imaging technology. If
the government decided that brain imaging could be used and enforced in courts because of its
biological origin, then there could be various trials where one could be incriminated by their own
brain, unwillingly.
Not only is this a scary issue in regards to what is covered under an individual’s rights,
but the possible results from this happening could be even more damaging. In Kerri Smith’s

3. Falls 3
article entitled “Brain Decoding: Reading Minds” presents the fact that while scientists may be
able to reverse engineer thoughts, dreams, and perhaps intentions using fMRI scanning, there
still is an extensive amount of work to be done regarding the accuracy and generalization of
these scans and the brain activity it produces. Finding a way to generalize or standardize brain
imaging across brains has not been done yet, so there are many concerns whether or not brain
imaging should even be considered as viable evidence in a court of law. While similar areas of
the brain may be triggered for similar thoughts, each individual’s brain is severely complex and
differs not just from other people’s brains, but within their own over time. It is unlikely that
there will ever be technology that is so incredibly accurate, consistent, and standard across the
board that a jury or a judge would accept it as evidence that either makes or breaks an entire
case.
Along with this issue stems multiple other ethical issues, such as who is to review these
images and analyze them for a conviction in the court of law. People have questioned whether
jurors would even be capable of understanding the information put in front of them, or whether it
would be fair or not to have some sort of specialized jury put in place for certain cases in which
brain imaging is used. Another issue that arises among the rest is that in order to even get the
most complex images that could be used to incriminate or free someone, that would require the
suspect to be cooperative enough to be strapped into a giant, expensive machine and hold
completely still, while thinking things that would have otherwise been entirely private to him or
her. Obviously in terms of guilt, this would not be an ideal technique for trying to attain the truth
of the case.
Due to the unreliable nature of brain imaging in terms of generalization, as well as the
complications that come with the entire event of scanning someone’s brain for information as

4. Falls 4
just presented, I am not in agreement with using brain images as evidence in a court of law. I
think that attempting to use these images would not only violate a person’s right to their own
mind, but it would not be the most effective way to go about addressing a jury. The average
American is not known to have extensive knowledge of the brain or current technologies, so to
present something so extensive to a group of people who may have never even heard of such a
thing and expect them to come to a consensus on what it means is simply ridiculous. Not only
that, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that a criminal would voluntarily undergo such
extensive interrogation, or if not voluntarily, would let it happen without significant disruption of
the process, which wouldn’t be difficult to achieve. All that someone would have to do is not
stay still or think distracting, unrelated thoughts. Although it has been proven to be fairly
successful, no one has denied that there is absolutely room for error in reading thoughts, so there
is always a chance it might not work in every case it is applied to.
With my stance against brain imaging in courts, I understand that this may result in some
ramifications that may displease people such as not as precise data or strongly convincing
arguments for or against a person. While brain imaging could become the key to simply reading
people’s minds and pulling information straight from their brains, I believe that there are better
options out there that are not as cumbersome, violating, or non-malleable in respect to
generalizing across brains. In the video presented by David Talbot regarding facial reading, we
encounter a viable alternative to brain imaging. While facial coding of emotion may not be
precisely reading where one’s thoughts are or approximately what they are, it is a way to see
people’s intention or thoughts regarding any subject without violating their intellectual rights and
without their extensive cooperation. This facial recognition system could be used to identify if
someone is particularly emotional or reactive to certain aspects of a crime, as well as helping to

5. Falls 5
identify if a person is intending to deceive the jury, the judge, or anyone else in the court of law.
This sort of coding could be fooled if the person has a near-professional poker face, but it has
been shown to be incredibly difficult to do so, as it also reads your heart rate and detects even the
slightest change in facial expression. A system like this would be easier to explain to a jury as
well, as it could be as simple as explaining what sort of facial expression correlates with the
emotion an individual is feeling at the time of questioning.
Overall, brain imaging is an incredible advancement in neurological studies that could be
used to either incriminate or free society. While it is becoming more and more precise in its
function, fMRI scanning has a way to go in terms of generalizing across the board so that it can
be used and read effectively. I believe that brain imaging is not the best avenue to take when it
comes to the ethical issue of using it in the court of law and believe that facial recognition will be
the more reliable and less violating route of the future. Until then, I suppose it is in the hands of
both our government and leading scientists of the nation who will hopefully take into account the
ethical dilemmas that sprout from such a complex issue as the brain and brain imaging.

6. Falls 6
References
Gallant, Jack. Movie Reconstruction From Human Brain Activity. YouTube, 2011.
Gallant, Jack. Movie Reconstructions From Human Brain Activity: 3 Subjects. YouTube, 2011.
Smith, Kerri. “Brain Decoding: Reading Minds.” Nature News 502.7472 (2013): 428–430. Web.
Stahl, Leslie et al. Mind Reading. CBS 60 Minutes.
Talbot, David. Crossroads for an Emotion-Detecting Face Reader. Technology Review, 2013.