25-05-2025
Police spark outcry for using 'unethical' mind-reading technology on suspects against their will
In a courtroom without fingerprints or DNA, a young woman's brainwaves became the key evidence against her.
Aditi Sharma, 24, was accused of poisoning her fiancé in 2008. She denied it. But investigators turned to a controversial technology called Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling (BEOS), a type of brain scan some call 'mind reading.'
They placed a cap with electrodes on her head, played specific phrases about the crime, and claimed her brain revealed recognition and guilt, even as her mouth said otherwise.
With no physical proof, the judge largely relied on the BEOS test to convict her.
Developed in 1999 by neuroscientist Dr C.R. Mukundan, BEOS profiling uses EEG scans to detect whether someone's brain reacts to details about a crime with familiarity, which researchers believe signals personal involvement or knowledge.
During a BEOS session, forensic teams present statements like 'held the knife to his neck,' while recording brain activity.
A familiar neurological response is considered a sign that the suspect experienced the event firsthand.
Supporters claim BEOS can identify guilty individuals with up to 90 percent accuracy, though it has also misclassified innocent people about five percent of the time, according to India's Directorate of Forensic Science.
Critics argue the science behind BEOS is deeply flawed and ethically dangerous.
Many say it lacks large-scale testing and peer-reviewed validation. Human rights groups warn it violates mental privacy, especially when used without consent.
In fact, India's Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that BEOS and similar techniques like polygraphs and narcoanalysis are inadmissible unless the subject voluntarily agrees to them.
Despite this, reports suggest these tools continue to be used, sometimes under questionable circumstances.
Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga told The New York Times: 'This work is shaky at best.'
BEOS was used in several high-profile Indian cases. In one instance, a 20-year-old man named Surjaram volunteered to take the test after being accused of rape.
The results showed no neurological signs of guilt, supporting his claim of innocence.
In another, Abdul Wahid Shaikh and 12 others were accused in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings.
They underwent repeated BEOS, narco, and polygraph tests. Years later, Shaikh was acquitted for lack of evidence, raising further concerns about coerced confessions and faulty interpretations.
Despite backlash, BEOS remains widely used in Indian forensic labs, including the National Forensic Sciences University, founded by Prime Minister Modi in 2008. Some devices cost up to $100,000.
Outside India, BEOS and similar neurotech tools are drawing attention. Some European countries, including Italy, Slovenia, and the Netherlands, have begun experimenting with brain-based technologies in legal contexts.
Yet many scientists and ethicists, such as Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno, are calling for a new fundamental right to mental privacy to protect individuals from non-consensual brain scanning.
Legal scholar Owen Jones warns: 'If reliable, brain-based evidence could transform justice.
But if unreliable, it could do the opposite,masking guesswork as science.'
A study led by Jared Genser of Perseus Strategies found that neurotech companies often fail to inform consumers or protect their neural data, exposing users to misuse.
As law enforcement agencies worldwide explore neuroscience in criminal justice, the stakes are rising.
Courts in the US have largely rejected brainwave-based evidence over concerns about reliability and bias.
Still, the promise of unlocking hidden truths continues to attract interest.
