Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 1

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Lie-Detection Technology and its Application in the Criminal

Justice Field

Rebecca Hayes

Howard High School

“Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth,” is a statement widely recognized by the public as the sworn testimony a witness must

recite to affirm their honesty in a United States court (“An Obligation,” 1999). Despite this oath,

perjury continues to prevail. The enforcement of the truth in court has been a prevalent issue

since the first appearances of court systems in history. Researchers in the twentieth century

attempted to address these concerns with the invention of lie-detection technology, most notably

the polygraph test. Nevertheless, the questionable reliability of the polygraph test has barred it

from being used as admissible evidence in court, encouraging the development of alternate, more

reliable methods of lie-detection. Lie-detection technology in the form of functional

neuroimaging, which measures brain activity through an aspect of neural function, primarily

oxygen levels and blood flow, is more reliable due to the scientific basis of the results, and

therefore can be used to better uphold the truth in court, creating a more efficient and effective

criminal justice system.

Neuroimaging is more reliable than other forms of lie-detection and is much more

precise than other forms of lie-detection, as it directly measures brain activity. Neuroimaging is

defined as the process of producing images of brain structure and activity through processes

such as fMRI, CT, and PET scans (Kerr et al., 2008). Specifically, fMRI technology, or

functional magnetic resonance imaging, utilizes magnetic fields to examine the oxygen usage

and blood flow of the brain, thus determining the active neural regions. This designation can

help researchers determine if a subject is lying (Saarman, 2006). The directness of fMRI

technology ensures that the results of the tests are precise and the conclusions drawn from these

tests are equally reliable. This precision is also evident in fNIRS technology, or ​functional
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 3

near-infrared spectroscopy,​ which can be defined as ​technology that utilizes near-infrared light

to inspect the hemodynamic responses of the brain in conjunction with neuron usage. By

pinpointing the active areas of the brain, experts are able to recognize deception ​(Bhutta et al.,

2015)​. The reliability that is evident across all forms of functional neuroimaging allowed

neuroimaging to move to the forefront of lie-detection research, most notably in its applications

to society.

Neuroimaging is an appealing form of lie-detection as it allows experts to identify

specific areas of the brain that are active. This specificity and precision are evident in the

results of neuroimaging, as the more exact the technology, the more specific the conclusions

become. With fMRI technology, “active parts of the brain use more oxygen than inactive

portions,” which allows researchers to markedly pinpoint which areas of the brain are being

used by a subject (Saarman, 2006). If that specific area correlates to a region used for

deception, experts can determine whether a subject is lying (Saarman, 2006). Furthermore, the

technology operates at a speed fast enough to ​“observe changes in the regional blood volume

and flow that are associated with cognitive activity” (Langleben et al., 2013). The quickness

and efficiency of the fMRI technology allows it to create an image of a brain “every few

seconds,” which when analyzed by researchers, simplifies the process of determining a

subject’s neural responses to a question, whether that be deception or truth (Langleben et al.,

2013). ​This is similarly the case with fNIRS scanning, which “​decodes deception based on the

hemodynamic changes of oxy-hemoglobin measured at the prefrontal cortex” (​Bhutta et al.,

2015)​. Just as with fMRI technology, fNIRS technology’s speed and detailed results have

allowed researchers to observe an optimal view of the brain’s functions, which they then utilize
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 4

to determine deception. It is commonly stated that these attributes of neuroimaging, which

“reliably measure and localize the activity of the central nervous system,” have enabled

neuroimaging to grow superior to other forms of lie-detection, most specifically “the polygraph

and the EEG for lie detection” (Langleben et al., 2013). Thus, the ability of neuroimaging to

provide researchers with clear and in-depth images of brain function has made functional

neuroimaging technology an appealing form of lie-detection.

T​he most prevalent forms of functional neuroimaging are more accurate than other

forms of lie-detection. For instance, fMRI technology boasts a high accuracy rate. In one case,

researchers, when testing a forced-choice deception task, determined that the predictive rate of

accuracy for fMRI technology is 88% (Davatzikos et al., 2005). In another study, the accuracy

of fMRI technology when used as lie-detection was “over 75%” ​(Langleben et al., 2013). The

high accuracy associated with ​lie-detection enforces the reliability of the technology in

comparison to the multitude of other lie-detection technology available. Furthermore, t​he

results of fNIRS technology are concrete and exact. According to one source, fNIRS

technology offers “a relatively non-invasive, safe, portable, and low-cost method of indirect

and direct monitoring of brain activity” (Irani et al., 2007). The ability of functional

neuroimaging to produce a concrete image of brain activity and its changes over a period of

time grants the technology an exactness that is not attributed to other forms of lie-detection.

This same exactness is emphasized in an alternative source, which states that fNIRS technology

produces “a clear and significant difference between the respiration and EDA signals

corresponding to true and lie responses” ​(Bhutta et al., 2015). It is this precision that lends the

results of functional neuroimaging their credibility, especially when compared to the less
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 5

precise results of other forms of lie-detection. Overall, researchers have formed a general

consensus that measuring neural function is consistently accurate. ​Most experts accept “that

direct measurement of brain functions might enable … more accurate and consistent detection

of lies” (​Bhutta et al., 2015). This is only corroborated in a source which states, “The results

demonstrate … that accurate clinical tests could be based on measurements of brain function

with fMRI” (Davatzikos et al., 2005). Most researchers share the belief that functional

neuroimaging provides society with a more accurate and reliable form of lie-detection. The

unanimous conclusion among experts demonstrates how neuroimaging has surpassed other

forms of lie-detection technology as most accurate.

In addition, neuroimaging can be utilized in conjunction with other forms of

lie-detection technology, improving the reliability of both. For instance, fNIRS technology can

be effectively combined with the polygraph test. In one study, both the fNIRS technology and

the polygraph test were used together “​for enhanced lie-detection” in order ​to determine if the

subjects were guilty of deception​ ​(Bhutta et al., 2015). While the fNIRS imaging focused on

brain imaging, the polygraph measured the physiological responses to lie-detection, with the

results ​of the tests being “much higher than those achieved by the single systems”​. One

conclusion drawn from the study was that it “​demonstrates a plausible solution toward

single-trial lie-detection by combining fNIRS and the polygraph” ​(Bhutta et al., 2015). This

study effectively shows the benefits of functional neuroimaging and the applications of the

technology, as it can be combined with existing technology to produce even more secure

results.
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 6

W​hile using one form of lie-detection is beneficial, neuroimaging can help clarify those

results.​ Many scientists and researchers believe that​ if the brain signals produced during

deception can be observed, “ understanding the deception phenomenon and detecting them are

easily done” ​(Bhutta et al., 2015).​ In other terms, functional neuroimaging has the ability to

help better understand the results of other lie-detection technology, for neuroimaging allows

experts to observe specific brain signals, which can recognize deception and then be applied as

corroboration for the results of other lie-detection tests. These characteristics of functional

neuroimaging solidify its reliability as a method of lie-detection.

A​s neuroimaging technology has a high accuracy rate, it can be used to improve other

forms of lie-detection, it is more precise than other technologies in pinpointing detection, and it

is evidently more reliable than other forms of lie-detection. It is this reliability that makes

functional neuroimaging useful in a courtroom setting.

Neuroimaging technology can be optimally used to uphold the truth in court and is a

better alternative to polygraph testing. By definition, the polygraph test is a device used to

indicate deception that measures and records one’s physiological responses while answering

certain questions. These results are analyzed by experts to determine if the subject is lying or

telling the truth (Saarman, 2006). fMRI technology is generally considered by experts to trump

the capabilities of the polygraph as the polygraph test is rarely accurate. When polygraph tests

are utilized as a method of lie-detection, “​most of the individuals flagged by the polygraph are

likely to be false positives and a substantial proportion of the liars are likely to be missed”

(Langleben et al., 2013). This indicates that the results of the polygraph test are neither

consistent or accurate, two characteristics commonly attributed to functional neuroimaging

technology. Another study, after running an fMRI scan and a polygraph test in conjunction,

“found that fMRI scans are more reliable than polygraph tests in detecting lies” (Young, 2018).

This experiment, directly contrasting the capabilities of fMRI technology and the polygraph,

ensured the greater reliability and precision of fMRI technology in regards to lie-detection. It is

the unreliable nature of the polygraph test, most notable in comparison to other forms of

lie-detection, that make it a less desirable option for the courtroom.

Neuroimaging is ultimately a better option in court for one final reason: ​Polygraph test

results are rarely admissible in court. Referring to policies in the United States, one study

explicitly declares that there is a “lack of consensus on the reliability and admissibility of the

polygraph,” thus the court has remained relatively hostile to its acceptance as admissible

evidence ​(Langleben et al., 2013). The United States court system’s continued aversion to the

polygraph test has allowed other forms of lie-detection, specifically that of functional

neuroimaging, to move to the forefront of admissible evidence in court. These statements are

corroborated in another investigation, which determined that “​the outcome [of a polygraph test]

can be skewed … [limiting its] courtroom admissibility” (Melendez, 2018). This further

solidifies the consensual belief of experts that the polygraph test is not suitable to be used as

admissible evidence in court. As the polygraph lacks consistency and reliability, it is not an

effective way of conveying deception. Nevertheless, both consistency and reliability are present

in forms of functional neuroimaging, which are better alternatives in court to the polygraph test.

Neuroimaging technology better fits the definition for admissible evidence than other

forms of lie-detection. Admissible evidence is defined as evidence that can be introduced to a

judge or jury to establish or support a case ​(Pontin, 2009). On the other hand, inadmissible
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 8

evidence is evidence that is not accepted as valid in court (Pontin, 2009). ​Under these

definitions, neuroimaging technology has a greater chance of being utilized in court over

technology such as the polygraph test. In reference to the Supreme Court’s definition on

scientific knowledge as admissible evidence, one author identifies ​“knowledge validated by a

specific methodology, which it described … as subsequent controlled experimentation or

systematic field observation to verify or falsify the hypothesis” (Pontin, 2009). This excerpt

describes functional neuroimaging, which has been proven to provide consistent results, a

factor that the Supreme Court explicitly looks for in admissible evidence. One law declares that

brain imaging can be used for medical or scientific purposes, as well as a form of court

expertise ​(Langleben et al., 2013). This law solidifies the place of functional neuroimaging in

the courtroom, ensuring its potential as admissible evidence.

Neuroimaging has greater future potential than any other form of lie-detection

technology. For one, neuroimaging methods are expected to become more consistent in the

future. The future of lie-detection technology​ “seems to be headed in the direction of more

standardized methods and more concrete evidence of the consistency of fMRI lie detection

results” (Young, 2018). As functional neuroimaging technology develops in the future, it is

expected that the technology will be able to produce results that are even more standardized and

specific than the current day technology. This is emphasized by one expert, who states that the

funding and research of functional neuroimaging “is not a trivial endeavor” ​(Langleben et al.,

2013)​. This indicates the potential for functional neuroimaging to expand in the coming years,

broadening the technology’s capabilities. These expectations are not attributed to other forms of

lie-detection, such as the polygraph, which is expected to remain stagnant in the future. This
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 9

future potential is due to neuroimaging technology’s technological superiority to other forms of

lie-detection. One expert writes that fMRI has the ability to precisely measure the location and

the activity of the nervous system, rendering it superior to other forms of lie-detection, such as

the polygraph test ​(Langleben et al., 2013). This excerpt only emphasizes the technological

superiority of fMRI technology and functional neuroimaging over its lie-detection

predecessors. One author states that “​brain scans ... have the potential to revolutionize lie

detection because they bypass unreliable physiological indicators of anxiety used in older

polygraph technologies” ​(Kerr et al., 2008).​ The potential of functional neuroimaging to

innovate the field of lie-detection only reinforces its technological advantages over other forms

of lie-detection, such as the polygraph test. These advantages grant functional neuroimaging the

future potential that other lie-detection lacks.

Neuroimaging can be ideally used in the courtroom, for it is a better alternative to the

polygraphs currently used, it has future potential unparalleled by other forms of lie-detection

technology, and it better fits the definition of admissible evidence than other technologies. With

these advantages, neuroimaging technology will only serve to improve the criminal justice

system.

Using neuroimaging technology as evidence in court creates a more effective criminal

justice system, and courts must adapt to encompass this. Functional neuroimaging allows for

greater efficiency in the courtroom, “likely [being used] in the sentencing phase” ​(Young,

2018)​. The use of brain imaging in order to determine one’s mental state, and thus their

sentence, allows courtrooms to undergo less deliberation, ensuring a more efficient process.

Generally, courts are “​increasingly looking to [functional neuroimaging] as a means of

reducing the search for truth to the existence or non-existence of certain brain states” ​(Kerr et

al., 2008). Reducing the search for truth implies that functional neuroimaging will aid in

expediting the criminal justice system, thus developing a more efficient process.

The law is expected to adapt to these technological advancements, primarily functional

neuroimaging, in the future. One researcher, after expressing the staying power of functional

neuroimaging, stated that “courts and legislators will increasingly be asked how the law should

account for the technologies’ growing ability to detect an individual’s thoughts and intent”

(Salmanowitz, 2018). Many predict that, in the coming years, as brain imaging becomes even

more reliable, the law will work to accept functional neuroimaging as a means of admissible

evidence. In reference to the sentiments of experts in the criminal justice system, one author

states, “​The criminal justice system is interested in employing reliable versions of these

[functional neuroimaging] technologies” ​(Kerr et al., 2008). The interest of those in the

criminal justice system only ensures the future acceptance of functional neuroimaging as a

stable factor in the courtroom.

Neuroimaging technology can help make the process of obtaining evidence for law

enforcement more efficient, as neuroimaging ensures a faster acquisition of evidence.

One aspect of neuroimaging is that it “remove[s] the individual from their role as the

gatekeeper of … information … seizing the information from snapshots of their brain activity”

(Kerr et al., 2008). The ability of neuroimaging to bypass deception grants law-enforcement the

capacity to acquire evidence on a quicker basis, allowing them to use lie-detection in

investigations “as an information-gathering tactic” (Young, 2018). Brain scanning can produce

more efficient results because it “would allow the police to gather information about a person
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 11

from his or her body” (Kerr et al., 2008). Law-enforcement access to this data would assist

them in convicting or acquitting a suspect, as they would be able to draw direct conclusions

from the functional neuroimaging test results. Therefore, the introduction of functional

neuroimaging to the criminal justice system only increases courtroom efficiency.

With neuroimaging, there is little chance of producing false or misleading evidence.

Many experts are under the agreement that “​if unreliable lie detection gets used, people's lives

will be blighted” (Saarman, 2006). This belief that unreliable lie-detection is harmful to society

has encouraged the development of reliable and consistent lie-detection, such as functional

neuroimaging. There have been multiple cases of brain imaging being used as concrete

evidence in court. In 2009, a defendant was deemed unfit to receive the death penalty by an

expert “due to signs of psychopathy in an fMRI scan” (Young, 2018). This reveals prior use of

functional neuroimaging as admissible evidence in court, qualifying it as accurate. In the case

of Iowa v. Harrington in 2003, “brain fingerprinting was used to help exonerate a person

wrongfully accused of murder” (Kerr et al., 2008). The capacity of functional neuroimaging to

aid in the acquittal of a suspect has secured its place in the courtroom as potential evidence.

Lie-detection technology can help uphold security in the courtroom and in society, as it

adheres to The Employee Polygraph Protection Act, ensuring the certain positions are filled

with law-abiding citizens. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act is defined as a U.S. federal

law that prevents employers from using polygraph tests to screen prospective employees

(LaMotte, 2018)​. Specifically, it is used to monitor employees “​if the position includes

handling drugs or security” (LaMotte, 2018). The use of lie-detection to uphold security in

sensitive positions solidifies the place of lie-detection and functional neuroimaging in society.
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 12

Lie-detection exists to screen individuals for government positions as well. One place

for lie-detection outside of the courtroom is “as pre-employment and in-employment screening

technique for government agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation” ​(Langleben et

al., 2013). It is also widely used “​for security clearance for the ... CIA” (MacAskill, 2015).

Lie-detection is commonly used as a method of enforcing security in government intelligence

organizations, emphasizing its ability to maintain security in society and across the globe, in all

facets.

Neuroimaging technology is able to create a more effective criminal justice system

through its ability to streamline trials, its capacity to obtain evidence at a quick rate, and its

potential to increase the safety and security of society. Overall, said potential only serves to

solidify the benefits of transitioning into using neuroimaging technology.

Lie-detection technology, specifically functional neuroimaging, will be able to institute

a safer and more efficient criminal justice system through its technological reliability and

capacity to uphold the truth in the courtroom. While lie-detection has been shunned from being

used as evidence in the past, the recent developments in technology have opened the door for

functional neuroimaging to be used as admissible evidence in the future. The use of functional

neuroimaging technology in court would guarantee the truth of all delivered statements,

ensuring that the sworn testimony will soon be a obsolete.

References
Bhutta, R., Hong, M. J., Kim, Y.-H., & Hong, K.-S. (2015). Single-trial lie detection using a
combined fNIRS-polygraph system. Frontiers in Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00709
Davatzikos, C., Ruparel, K., Fan, Y., Shen, D., & Acharyya, M. (2005). Classifying spatial
patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: Application to lie detection.
NeuroImage, 28(3), 663-668. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.009
Irani, F., Platek, S. M., Bunce, S., Ruocco, A. C., & Chute, D. (2007). Functional near infrared
spectroscopy (fNIRS): An emerging neuroimaging technology with important
applications for the study of brain disorders. Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(1), 9-37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040600910018
Kerr, I., Binnie, M., & Aoki, C. (2008). Tessling on my brain: The future of lie detection and
brain privacy in the criminal justice system. ​Canadian Journal of Criminology &
Criminal Justice​, ​50​(3), 367-387. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.50.3.367
LaMotte, S. (2018, September 7). The shaky science of lie detectors. Retrieved January 18, 2019,
from CNN website:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/lie-detector-facts-accuracy/index.html
Langleben, D. D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where
science, law and research policy collide. ​Psychol Public Policy Law​, ​19​(2), 222-234.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028841
MacAskill, E. (2015, January 4). British and Dutch researchers develop new form of lie-detector
test. Retrieved November 15, 2018, from The Guardian website:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/04/british-dutch-researchers-new-form-lie
-detector-test-polygraph
Melendez, S. (2018, May 24). Goodbye polygraph? New tech uses AI to tell if you're lying. ​Fast
Company​. Retrieved from
https://www.fastcompany.com/40575672/goodbye-polygraphs-new-tech-uses-ai-to-tell-if
-youre-lying
An obligation `to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. (1999, January 15). The
New York Times. Retrieved from
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/011599impeach-rtext.htm
l
Pontin, M. W. (2009, April 21). Lie detection. ​MIT Technology Review.​ Retrieved
from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413133/lie-detection/
Saarman, E. (2006, May 3). New lie detection technology too much like scientific mind reading,
ethicist says. ​Stanford News.​ Retrieved from
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/may3/lies-050306.html
Running Head: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING 14

Salmanowitz, N. (2018, December 3). Overview of U.S. lie detection systems for airport security
checkpoints [Blog post]. Retrieved from Lawfare website:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/overview-us-lie-detection-systems-airport-security-checkp
oints
Young, T. (2018, January 10). Does fMRI lie detection have a future in the courtroom? [Blog
post]. Retrieved from The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review website:
http://stlr.org/2018/01/10/does-fmri-lie-detection-have-a-future-in-the-courtroom/?cn-rel
oaded=1