Technology is not a panacea for custodial deaths

India has a poor record in police brutality and custodial violence. Between 2001 and 2018, 1,727 people died in police custody, but only 26 policemen were blamed for such deaths. The recent incidents of custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu have once again exposed the methods used by the police during interrogation. It is not uncommon to find that police, when they become increasingly frustrated with the pace of their interrogation, sometimes resort to torture and violence that can lead to the death of a suspect. Custodial deaths are common despite huge time and money being spent on training police personnel to adopt scientific methods of investigation. This is because police personnel are human beings from different backgrounds and different perspectives.

use of technology

Given the problem of custodial deaths, many have proposed the technology as a silver bullet. There are many technological solutions available to help prevent custodial deaths. These include body cameras and automated external defibrillators. There is no doubt that technology can help prevent deaths in police custody. For example, body cameras can hold officers accountable. Deception detection tests (DDTs), which deploy techniques such as polygraphs, narco-analysis and brain mapping, can be valuable in learning information that only a criminal knows about a crime.

Among DDT, the Brain Fingerprinting System (BFS) is an innovative technology that many police forces consider adding to their investigative equipment. BFS has been instrumental in solving crimes, identifying criminals and acquitting innocent suspects. Laboratory and field tests for BFS in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the US Navy showed no errors and there were no false positives and false negatives. This technology helps investigative agencies to find clues in complex cases. In June 2008, India convicted an accused on the basis of evidence from a BFS device. In 2010, the Supreme Court, in Selvi vs State of Karnataka, made the evidence inadmissible. The court said that the state cannot conduct narco analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping tests of any person without his consent. However, with informed consent, any information or material discovered during BFS trials may be part of the evidence. Since BFS is a high-end technology, it is expensive and unavailable in many states.

Police departments are increasingly using robots for surveillance and bomb detection. Many departments now want robotic interrogation to interrogate suspects. Many experts today believe that robots can meet or exceed the capabilities of a human interrogator, partly because humans are more inclined to respond to robots in the same way that they do to humans. From his study, human-computer interaction (HCI) researcher Joseph Weisenbaum concluded that suspects may be more receptive to open automated conversational counterparts than the police.

Robots equipped with AI and sensor technology can form relationships with suspects, use persuasive techniques such as flattery, shame and coercion, and strategically use body language. Researchers at the University of Arizona have created an automated interrogation technology called Automated Virtual Agents to assess truth in real-time (Avatar). The Canadian Border Services Agency tested the Avatar last year. The HCI system uses visual, auditory, near-infrared and other sensors to examine a suspect’s eye movements, voice and other qualities during a conversation. The collection and analysis of information by the system has been highly accurate.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are emerging as tools of inquiry. AI can detect human emotions and predict behavior. So these are also options. ML can alert superiors in real time when police are treating suspects inhumanely.

legitimate concerns

There is a lot of concern about AI or robot interrogation, both legally and ethically. There exists the risk of bias, the risk of automated querying strategies, the danger of ML algorithms targeting individuals and communities, and the risk of its misuse for surveillance. So, while the technology available to police and law-enforcement agencies continues to improve, it remains a restricted tool that cannot eradicate custodial deaths. While it may provide comfort and transparency, it can never address the underlying issues that lead to these situations.

We need to formulate a multi-pronged strategy by decision makers involving legal acts, technology, accountability, training and community relations. The Law Commission of India’s proposal in 2003 to replace the Evidence Act to put the onus of evidence on the police for not torturing suspects is significant in this regard. Apart from this, strict action should be taken against the personnel violating the orders issued by the apex court. DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997). The draft Bill on Prevention of Atrocities, 2017, which did not see the day, needs to be revived. Technology may make policing more convenient, but it can never be a substitute for compassionate policing founded on trust between police and citizens.

Of. Jayant Murali is an Indian Police Service officer.