I think our judiciary does exercise that power, and would do so responsibly. I do note that in our current jurisprudence, it's quite clear that our judges view our review boards as much better at determining the issue of significant risk.
In terms of jurisprudence—Mr. Burstein is perhaps more capable than I, as he's been present in many of those cases—our Supreme Court has said, in cases like Owen and others, that great deference is owed to the review boards, that the review boards consist of psychiatric, legal, and lay people who are experts in their field at determining the issue of risk.
I'm not suggesting that it's impossible for judges to make that determination—