All I'm saying, again, is that it might be helpful if we thought--and I don't think Mr. Thompson and I in any way agree. If we do agree, I don't think we think this is necessarily the position of all the churches listed. If there's some supplementary information you have, and you get a big imprimatur from a bishop, it might have some influence. But I'm only saying I appreciate your comments.
I really do want to get to the professor here on the Criminal Code.
I read your paper, and I'm trying to understand what the cure is. The cure seems to be some simple amendments to the sentencing parts of the Criminal Code, as directions to judges. Notwithstanding your good words about their use of discretion and notwithstanding your preamble that says it's pretty much working, you're kind of saying in the back end of it that we should give judges direction that on certain offences there's a presumption that they are not to use a conditional sentence. And there's a prerequisite, or a priority triage, where these crimes are set out. How easy do you think it would be in that first step--I guess I said “last”--the prioritization of offences?
You mention sexual assault and offences causing serious bodily harm as two examples. Joking aside about fishing trawlers and cattle, we've had a lot of discussion here about how a home invasion might be something that forever frightens a person from being part of...and so on. That's my question.
It sounds very simple when you say it, when you write it, but how much better would it be than the old hodge-podge, 150-year-old Criminal Code solution that we have now? How much easier would it be?