Reflections from the 34th Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Side Event at UNOV
Last month PPI’s United Nations Office at Vienna main representative Kay Schroeder attended a side event co-hosted by Interpol and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime during the 34th Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The event focused on the use of neurotechnologies in criminal justice. PPI is closely monitoring these conversations out of our concern that overzealous institutions will use these technologies to infringe on civil liberties.
Neurotechnology includes everything from functional MRI scanners to brain stimulation devices. And the scary thing is that law enforcement have been adopting these technologies. While these capabilities promise new avenues for crime prevention, they also raise profound questions about privacy and social inequalities. The poor and weaker members of society are at risk, and we must defend them from being abused by these technologies. Unfortunately, many of the speakers at the event did not seem concerned about the negative consequences of unleashing these tools.
Several presenters cited pioneering studies that predict reoffending based on brain activity, showing that it is even more reliable than profiling demographic factors. We worry about the scientific rigor and transparency of these studies, as well as safeguards against discrimination. Neurodata should never be used to reinforce discrimination. A recurring theme was the tension between voluntary interventions and coercive mandates. Rather we believe funding should be allocated to community-led mental-health services, rather than cheap technological attempts to prevent crime.
Speakers touted next-generation wearable devices that can decode semantics from brain-wave patterns. This eerie technology brings to mind the Orwellian thought police. They suggested that within three years, such devices might achieve more than 95% accuracy in lie detection, surpassing polygraphs. Others on site raised immediate concerns about readings, whereby even a 5% error rate can unjustly convict or exonerate. Aside from this, the dystopian invasion of privacy cannot be ignored. What happens when a suspect refuses the test? Would such refusal be deemed noncooperation or proof of guilt? We recommend statutory prohibition on compulsory neural lie detection, judicial oversight, and defending the right to silence.
Several NGOs showcased pilot programs in which neurofeedback helped participants with PTSD, addiction, or impulse-control issues. Such programs that seek to help people might offer positive ways to use this technology. We can be optimistic about some uses of this technology, but we should be careful. We must require informed consent, future studies about long-term impacts before such technologies are implemented, and careful oversight about how these programs are funded. We worry about cases where prisoners and less developed countries will be used as guinea pigs.
A highlight of the side event was a panel on “Neurorights”. They proposed five core entitlements to counterbalance neurotech’s invasive potential: mental privacy, ensuring that personal identity is not reprogrammed to distort one’s sense of self, cognitive liberty, protection from bias, ensuring these technologies do not exacerbate socioeconomic divides.
We believe PPI should call for a ban on covert neural data collection. We also would emphasize that such a ban should be considered on using such technology, except for positive reasons that involve psychological treatments where the patients are fundamentally aware of their rights to participate or refuse treatment. Until rigorous long-term studies are conducted, we should consider banning this technology outright, as we have with chemical weapons and other atrocious tools. We also should be careful that informed consent is not coerced. If a prisoner’s early release hinges on compliance with a “neurorehabilitation” protocol, is consent truly voluntary? Side event speakers recounted cases where incarcerated individuals felt compelled to sign on for neurofeedback to avoid extended sentences.
The side event showed both the promise and the peril of integrating neurotechnology into criminal justice. We applaud technological developments. We do not want to say that we should limit technological development. This technology may have positive uses in psychology and other fields, which can dramatically improve the well-being of some individuals. However, in the context of crime prevention, the use of this technology is frightening. We risk eroding mental privacy, entrenching biases, and coercing vulnerable populations.
As a UN ECOSOC member NGO, we are committed to ensuring that our voice is heard at the UN on these issues.
If you would like to help PPI continue to send representatives to these meetings, please consider making a small donation to our organization or becoming a member. If you would like to be involved personally in the movement, by writing about these issues or attending events, please let us know.
