Earlier this week, The Situationist posted a brief discussion of the implications of a practical, reliable lie detection system for jury deliberations and decision-making. One reaction I had was that this is a premature discussion. From what I've read, fMRI lie detection, the system getting a great deal of attention lately, is a far cry from the perfect lie detection system. Since the post was presented as a thought experiment--a what if discussion--I really didn't have a strong objection to it.
But law professor Tamara Piety is troubled by excessive enthusiasm for this system and responded with a lengthy comment. She notes that "the prospect of accurate fMRI lie detection is (as I understand it)
still relatively remote, while the dangers of courts and the public
leaping to adopt the latest technology that purports to offer reliable
lie detection is fairly proximate and of grave concern."
The Situationist thought the comment was so good that it deserved posting outside the comment section. I agree and recommend that you get on over there and read it.