Thank you.
If this steps outside of your area of expertise or specialty, there's no problem.
We haven't had a lot of criticism, necessarily, in the direction we're going with this one specific thing, other than, as I said, the fact that there's encouragement to try to do a bit more generally. But to focus right back on the bill, the only criticism I think we've heard is the concern that forcing—for lack of a better word—an inmate to pay or make restitution takes away their choice or their rehabilitative improvements to make the right choice and to seek reward and growth from that experience. I have my own opinion on that, which is that if anybody in the free world in society has to make those payments regardless of choice, then we should all be treated equally.
But from a purely rehabilitative perspective—and from your studies, if you have those—does that seem to make sense? If we're forcing a judgment upon an inmate to make restitution and payment because of a court judgment, would you see that as impacting on or interfering with their ability to achieve rehabilitation or to achieve a higher level of their own decision-making, which would affect them when they're released into the greater society?