The recent investigative procedure followed by Mumbai Police in terror attacks without going in for narco or brain tests
should indeed set an example to others. The finding of the Karnataka Police as reported in the Bangalore edition of a reputed National Daily dated December 11, 2008 that ‘Dr. Malini’s way of conducting narcoanalysis was unprofessional’ should also be an eye opener for the police of other States
Narcoanalysis is not used in UK, US, Continent of Europe, Australia and other modern democracies with a legal system that does not permit narcoanalysis. In India the Railway Minister is demanding narcoanalysis on MPs, The Karnataka Congress Leader H. Viswanath suggested that Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy and his colleagues undergo narcoanalysis in the Chennamma Trust bribery case. I am afraid that soon a trend may emerge that politicians may use narcoanalysis extensively to settle scores with their opponents and police may forget their pursuit of scientific methods.
Thanks to the media explosion about Narco and brain tests, people don’t believe the police. They want doctors, psychologists or anyone else in white apron and even police dogs to make up for the credibility shortfall. Let Indian Police do an introspection of what they are doing now.
Sudhanshu Sarangi, IPS an Indian top cop, now as a British Chevening scholar specializing in Investigative Psychology in Liverpool University, UK and researching for a PhD in Forensic Psychology under Professor David Canter, writes to his colleagues in Police in India through ‘IndiaTopCop@yahoogroups.com’ that “They need to get basic policing right. They should learn to preserve crime scene, search scenes of crime properly, interview witnesses properly, learn to work in teams, learn to maintain good documentation for court purposes and finally, they should use proven techniques like DNA. They need more resources to do these basic things right and they need to practice a high degree of ethical standard to improve their credibility”.
He wants the Indian Police to be aware of what psychologists call ‘heuristics” and in this case ’confirmation bias’. He writes “imagine going to a psychologist with a suspect and the psychologist administers a few tests and tells you that ‘the individual is aggressive, violent, manipulative, deceptive etc.’ Will you then be more inclined to search for corroborating evidence or imagine situations that may establish innocence?”
The psychologist who found an individual ‘aggressive etc.’ should also explain the purpose for which such a conclusion can be made, what is the margin of error etc. They should also write down any caveat (a warning or cautionary statement) as every psychologist is mandatorily required to do. These are issues around ethics that our doctors, psychologists engineers, often don`t adhere to. The reporting format also does not mention critical issues like a) competence b) caveats and c) scope of peer review or reference to other experts for a second opinion.
Consider a proven scientific test for example the test to detect chromium in a sample. Any number of times you repeat the test anywhere in the world, you get the same result. In case of narco test, the Bangalore narco-tester admits that the testee undergoes the test three times According to him, in the first trial, the testee would not disclose anything, but by reducing the drug concentration in subsequent trials the testee breaks down. He says that the drug finds its way in subsequent trials as if it accumulates or has different function each time. Any drug that is reliable must produce replicable results – same results every time it is administered. The narcotest was conducted five times within a span of 20 days on a suspect (Fahad Hai). Which one of the revelations recorded in the five CDs will be helpful to the police?
The narco-testers admit that the CDs are given to the police only after editing. Where is then the veracity of the test?
The biggest joke is the claim of the Bangalore Narco-testers that they achieve high rate of success 94 to 97 %! Success is, in terms of what? Success is achieved in torturing 94 to 97 percent of people! Would this mean that the interrogation of the psychologist, based on the police briefing positively confirms the ‘police story’ in 94 to 97 % of the cases and negates it in 3 to 6 % cases. The FSL director says ‘he will not call it interrogation, but some kind of a drug induced interview’. Are such results confirming police story considered success? This is something like a burglar calculating success rate for his burglaries. Narcotest is indeed Potemkin science.