LAUSR

Gerben Meynen’s article provides, from a legal perspective, a useful starting point to distinguish between the different types of technologies which offer the possibility of ‘brain-based mind reading’. It is timely because, as he points out, the first profession that is likely to use these technologies, when they become more accurate, are forensic psychiatrists. As forensic psychiatric assessments are widely used in the criminal court roomby judges and in adversarial justice systemsbyprosecutionanddefense, thenwhat he has to say is of interest to the law. Moreover, there is no doubt that the use of these technologies raises questions that need to be addressed by lawyers. Meynen’s article examines someof the incentives that exist to use such technologies, quoting a forensic psychiatrist, Don Grubin, who argues that the use of traditional lie detection technology, type I technologies could greatly assist forensic investigations. Indeed,Grubinmakes the claim that in respect of the polygraph testing of sex offenders the question for a forensic psychiatrist should not be should it be used, but rather why it should not be used.1 Such suggestions, especially when they provide for quicker and cheaper investigatory process, could be very attractive to governments that are looking for a less costly and more effective way to conduct criminal investigations and shorten the trial process. Practitioners of law are likely to be interested in these technologies for at least three reasons. Firstly, much research has been done into howmemory is laid down, and this reveals that subjective reports of memories of events are fallible. Furthermore, judgements made by lawyers and lay people of the veracity of evidence given in court are