An evaluation of incompetence is used to support an industry dependent upon it, not the person being evaluated. Every evaluations outcome is determined by the examiner's means, motives and methods, and the outcome says nothing about what may develop. Matter of fact, though an evaluation may not determine who you are, it may cause repercussions for the evaluator. For example:
If a friend is trying to help you with an incident you're suffering with, he might ask you: "Can you see it now?" And when you reply that you can, he might say to you: "Well its not happening now. I can't see anything of the kind!" And you, of course will be embarrassed. So, if he asks you if you see it happening again, and you say no, he might say to you: "Well if you can't picture it now, how can you be sure that it really happened?"
What he's done for you is to question the reality the experience you were reliving and recast it as a memory; a memory that you can doubt if you choose, but one that also be used to deny the allegations, or events (see Retrospective), so it can be a problem in criminal proceedings or therapeutic settings if you are invalidated by a professional.
Our example could be construed as an instance of reoffending. If a person begins to doubt themselves, and the double bind of the persons actual experience and the doubt that is created in his/her perceptions creates frustration and reliance on a system that is just trying to cover-up the incident, then what was a report may become a 'ghetto trial' (Same crime, new witnesses). Unless the stalker is actually known to be an offender and there is some level of system-wide support for your circumstances, you might be better off on you own.
The frustration and anger that results from tactics like these is in fact a form of insanity; though you might think you have a case, frustration that leads to aggression (and it usually does), can turn us into the inhuman animals we've been trying to describe, suggesting that we might now need more restraint than the criminals we're trying to convict. If we react to labels and crimes with the same inhumanity we prosecute, we prove that we too are inhumane. Please see: Challenges on the Streets
Those of us who have actually encountered terrorist activity know the trauma of the attack, and influence of terror continues long after the incident. To use public defamation to try to change the behavior of terrorists themselves, or those that combat it, is to participate in the hatred that hurts us.
We are being asked to examine our own behavior, and when we try to blame others, we make matters worse. Constantly seeking to identify the problem, we proudly point to the consequences of our own investigation to justify our disruptions. Like a Doctor who prescribes, the diagnosis justifies his prescriptions and the living he makes with them. It's what the brain does! It solves problems, and if there aren't any problems to solve, we invent some. It may not be necessary at all, but it is done in response to complaints. Complaints that we ourselves initiate. Please see: Self Examination