About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

95 Cornell L. Rev. 1191 (2009-2010)
Can Bad Science be Good Evidence - Neuroscience, Lie Detection, and Beyond

handle is hein.journals/clqv95 and id is 1203 raw text is: ESSAY CAN BAD SCIENCE BE GOOD EVIDENCE? NEUROSCIENCE, LIE DETECTION, AND BEYOND Frederick Schauert INTRODUCTION How should the legal system confront the advances in the brain sciences that may possibly allow more accurate determinations of ve- racity-lie detecting-than those that now pervade the litigation pro- cess? In this Essay, I question the view, widespread among the scientists most familiar with these advances, that the neuroscience of lie detection is not, or at least not yet, nearly reliable enough to be used in civil or criminal litigation or for related forensic purposes. But in challenging the neuroscientists and their allies, I make no claims about the science of lie detection that go beyond the current state of scientific knowledge or, more importantly, my own ability to speak about the relevant scientific developments. Rather, I argue that because law's goals and norms differ from those of science, there is no more reason to impose the standards of science on law than to impose the standards of law on science. Law must use science, and should always prefer good science to bad. In some contexts, however, good science may still not be good enough for law, while in other con- texts-hence the title of this Essay-bad science, as measured by the standards of scientists, may still have valuable legal uses. To be clear, my goal in this Essay is decidedly not to argue that neuroscience-based lie detection should, now or even in the foreseeable future, necessarily be admissible in court or used for other forensic purposes. Rather, t David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia. This Essay was presented at the Mini-Foro on Proof and Truth in the Law, Institute for Philosophical Research, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de M~xicQ (UNAM), as an Inau- gural Lecture at the University of Virginia School of Law, at the Duck Conference on Social Cognition, to the Departments of Psychology at Michigan State University and the University of Virginia, and at the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy at the University of Buffalo School of Law. Many of the ideas presented here were generated during meet- ings of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Law and Neuroscience Pro- ject, whose tangible and intangible support I gratefully acknowledge. Detailed and constructive comments by Charles Barzun, Teneille Brown, Jonathan Gradowski, Joshua Greene, Owen Jones, Adam Kolber, Greg Mitchell, John Monahan, Peter Tillers, Lloyd Snook, and Bobbie Spellman have made this version far better than its predecessors. 1191

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most