posted 09-27-2007 02:49 PM            

Therefore, to change the environment which leads to those behaviors, you'll have to change the legal system first.

posted 09-27-2007 06:11 PM            

I haven't heard much lately about the acceptance or use of paired testing. Have you or anyone else?

Jack

posted 09-27-2007 10:12 PM            

I understand your point, but being the skeptic that I am (sorry, I'm just a poor realist), how exactly would paired-testing stop or inhibit perjury?

posted 09-28-2007 12:39 PM            

That is how its done in other professions. The testing entity's mission is to attend to the standards established by the entity that sets standards, and deterimine who qualifies. They do not set the standards themselves. Nor do they provide any oversight, enforcement, or response to complaints. The only purpose is to determine who qualifies. To do otherwise, would be to complicate the mission with other agenda. The professionals at those agencies are not in the business of selling anything that is in competition with those who seek qualification, as that would constitute a conflict of interest (market competition).

We should think about doing this right.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 09-28-2007 02:23 PM            

There is movement in that direction as we speak.

Taylor,

The Veritas Center is doing the certifying. Don should have sent your scoring results to Jon Marin. Next, you need to send a tape to Jon, which has to be reviewed in order to complete the second portion of the process. I haven't heard from Jon in some time, and I know some have expressed concern that they never got their certificates from him. I'll try him again to check the status of things.

The downside here is that the Veritas Center (Jon Marin's business) does the certifying, and then that same business uses those examiners to run tests. Jon was looking to get the ABA or some other organization on board to fix some of the "glitches" in the system, but this is still in its infancy.

posted 09-28-2007 02:53 PM            

Its not the same at all, if the Veritas Center is in the business of providing examiners, providing examinations, or even referring examiners. Those activities involve mission statements that are divergent from the singular objective of qualification - just as the setting of standards and oversight of problem professional/cases/train-wrecks represents a distinct set of mission objectives.

The very best way to assure an ethically unencumbered process is to insist on singularity of mission - a single mission of activity.

Secondarily, it would be preferable to have persons involved in then entity's leadership who don't have financial or marketing objectives in the field. For example, most states licensing boards for mental health practitioners include non-professional members of the community - often leaders from other realms of business. Even the Colorado SOMB includes board appointees who are not in the business of treating offenders - judges, prosecutors, defenders, victim's advocates, social services administrators, and school officials.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 09-28-2007 02:59 PM            

I didn't say it was the same. I said it's being discussed. Right now, the Veritas Center is all we have, and I pointed out the "downside" of the current system, which is one of the motives for doing it as you suggest. It's a major endeavor, though, and it'll be a little while I suspect.

Taylor,

posted 09-28-2007 03:44 PM            

now that we agree there is a process for being "certified" in paired testing and we can get another paper to hang on our walls......how exactly are we going to prevent or inhibit witness perjury...???

Jim

posted 09-28-2007 05:05 PM            

A different examiner would test each subject. Both examiners being certified to a degree of competency of 85% or better. The resulting outcome can be mathamatically proven to be better than 98% accurate and the subject failing the test will not be allowed to testify. Therefore eliminating his perjured testimony.

That is a thumb nail sketch.

Astm has a standard for paired testing. We have been working on a standard of who the certifying committee would be made up of and what the process would entail. A rough draft was written by three of us two or three years ago but it was given to another party to get input and it hasn't been heard from again. It got lost in the shuffle. We are working on it and "no" it was not me who misplaced it, that person will remain nameless.

Jack