Admissibility Of Confession As An Evidence: A Critical Analysis Of Neuroscientific Techniques
- IJLLR Journal
- May 5, 2022
- 2 min read
Admissibility Of Confession As An Evidence: A Critical Analysis Of Neuroscientific Techniques And Other Influences
Arindam Shit, BBA LL. B, Alliance School of Law, Alliance University
ABSTRACT
Confession is crucial in the pursuit of a criminal trial, which is built on the foundation of truth and accuracy. It is an admission of guilt on the part of the accused. The truthfulness of the confession is in the accused’s favor, as the logical fallout dictates that it comes from the deepest sense of guilt and thus deserves the most credit. As a result, confession is crucial in determining the outcome of the case. A confession can take many different forms, including judicial, retracted, and extra-judicial confessions. As a result, courts must examine the admissibility of such confessions in order to rule out the possibility of smear evidence being presented in court.
Neuroscience has been used in the courtroom since the early twentieth century. However, over the last two decades, the use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal proceedings has increased significantly. This rapid rise has sparked concerns in the media, as well as the legal and scientific communities, about the impact that such evidence may have on legal decision-makers. There is some concern that testimony and images related to the defendant's brain may have an undue influence on legal decision- makers. This paper provides a brief analysis of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom to put its current use in context.
Furthermore, this paper has been designed to study the right against self- incrimination with such neuroscientific evidence and other influences enumerated under section 29 of the Evidence Act. A critique has been established over such evidence and attempted to understand the appropriate way to validate such cause.
Keywords: Confession, Neuroscience, evidence, legal validity, self- incrimination
