People have the right to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters and relationships. They have the right to control their own lives in a fashion that is secluded from the public's critical observations. This right to privacy protects the liberty of people to make particular consequential decisions regarding their own well-being without the involvement or interference of the government. Such decisions may involve procreation, the termination of treatment and assisted death, and private sexual affairs. Although the Constitution does not have explicit written Amendments regarding the right to privacy, it can be interpreted that the amendments were built on the aspect of privacy.
Narco-analysis is a term that has been derived from Greek word narkç which means "anesthesia" or "torpor". How men with sound mind lie? A person is able to lie by using his imagination. In the Narco Analysis Test, the person’s imagination is neutralized by making him semiconscious (hypnotic-like state). In the narco-analysis test, the person’s inhibitions are lowered by interfering with his nervous system at the molecular level in this state, it becomes difficult for him to lie and his answers would be restricted to facts he is already aware of.
Objections that the prosecution and/or defense should have been made. On page 1, line 22 the objection would be that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. Leading to the questioning of the witness to his point of view, of his reputation is the witness' statement of the point of view that is not permitted. On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement of the witness with respect to Mr. Michelson's “reputation is very good in the community...who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against anyone”; Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a).
a) The police had conducted due investigations including a background search on the ownership of the premises and the vehicle that was being used by the suspects. The background search results corroborated the unidentified police informant’s accounts on the suspect’s identity. Thus the police had probable cause to believe the suspects were involved in criminal activities. b) Based on CRI-2 account of the activities of Mildred, and the background check by affiants, their inference that Mildred was in fact involved in illegal activities was indisputable and as such the affidavit satisfied the test of reliability and the judge needed no further or extra information to issue the search warrant. c) The period the affiants were involved in observing, documenting and piecing together different parts of evidence necessary to form a probable cause as to the conduct of the suspects is sufficient and meets the test of “acting in good faith” to obtain the warrant to search the person of the defendant and vehicle and are not in any violation of the defendant fourth amendment right to privacy.
In criminal law when a criminal act is alleged to have been committed, the essential requirement for the crime is that the victim was opposed to the crime. One of the available defences when a criminal act is committed is that the victim actually gave consent to the acts . The defence of consent is available to certain case that result in bodily harm which includes assault and battery. For instance, in sports there is a physical contact. Participants are deemed to have consented to the physical contact and possible bodily harm.
In 2005, students of the Haifa Center for Law & Technology asserted that in fact the right to privacy "should not be defined as a separate legal right" at all. By their reasoning, existing laws relating to privacy in general should be sufficient. Other experts, such as William Prosser, have attempted, but failed, to find a "common ground" between the leading kinds of privacy cases in the court system, at least to formulate a definition. One law school treatise from Israel, however, on the subject of "privacy in the digital environment," suggests that the "right to privacy should be seen as an independent right that deserves legal protection in itself." It has therefore proposed a working definition for a "right to privacy": The right to privacy often must be balanced against the state 's compelling interests, including the promotion of public safety and improving the quality of life.
Polygraph testing would be considered an exaggerated claim because there is no scientific validity to back up the emotional response. “Because it measures physiological arousal rather than lying per se, the polygraph test is prone to mislabeling innocent persons guilty.” (Lilienfeld, Landfield 1222) As previously discussed, this test is based upon emotions, which the article by Scott Lilienfeld and Kristen Landfield further proves the pseudoscience behind polygraph testing. Throughout law enforcement and police officials’ careers, they are faced with daily challenges in pseudoscience, and the article further describes how lie detection is a part of that process. It also discusses in the article that they agree that the lie detectors should not be administered in a court of law. Another theory that comes into effect when discussing lie detector testing is terror management theory.
The most important of all is determining the scope and interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence act, 1872. Though the section does not explicitly states anything about the scientific methods to extract information from the accused such as narco-analysis or polygraph test or brain mapping but it does talk about that when court is in any kind of doubt, they may on some point of science consider an expert’s opinion to become sure of their judgment. Now since this particular study is focused on determining the value of Narco-analysis and its effects on the accused as a whole. Narco-analysis: “This test involves the intravenous administration of a drug (such as sodium pentothal, scopolamine and sodium amytal) that causes the subject to enter into various stages of anaesthesia. In the hypnotic stage, the subject becomes less inhibited and is more likely to divulge information, which would usually not be revealed in the conscious state.
Furthermore, in Part III of the constitution of India, 1950, the provision of fundamental rights protects the dignity of the individuals at large. The constitutional Courts also have emphasized dignity as a fundamental right in many cases, and have developed the decisional jurisprudence regarding human dignity. The Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is the heart and soul of our constitution. It provides for the protection of and advancement of human dignity and its scope is being widened in an ever expanding horizon, by various judicial pronouncements. The major landmark decision which led to the widening concept of Article 21 is the case of Maneka Ghandi Vs Union of India, 1 SCC 248(1978), wherein a broad interpretation was adopted.
However, there are some provisions under domestic legislations that indirectly deals with the concept of hostile witness. 1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 The Law of Evidence is nothing but a system of rules and principle which assist the court to ascertain the fact in the judicial proceedings. Generally, the party is prohibited from asking of leading question to its own witness under section 142 of Evidence Act because there is presumption that a witness is always biased towards the party calling him. However, the rule is relaxed because of evolution of concept of hostile witnesses in India and the court may permit the party to cross examine his own witness.