Regarding Ms. Jennings' comments, as a retired police officer, I accept that there is another side to this, but I raise Mr. Callow for a couple of reasons. I know that the committee likes to focus on case studies or on those the legislation actually applies to, as opposed to bringing up something that has no applicability. I think Mr. Callow, who has two previous offences that are primary designated, is precisely the person. So, hey, if Mr. Callow is somebody other than his four years for rape and his 20 years for sexual assault, and the fact that he was among the 1% or 1.5% of the population in prison who are gated until the very last day of his sentence would show, and he carries on, that's wonderful. Nothing would make this witness happier, and I'm certain nothing would make anybody in this room happier. I think the point is that Mr. Callow is somebody who would be captured by this legislation, both with respect to the third predicate offence if he committed another primary designated offence, and because he would also be subject to the terms of the new section 810, which would allow for two years instead of one, and also allow for broader protective measures with respect to section 810, whether it's electronic monitoring or residency or any number of the good conditions suggested.
I raised him because he applies. If he doesn't commit another crime between now and whenever he passes from this world, that will be a good thing. Hopefully, we'll have a section 810 order that lasts two years, and if we need it we can use it. If he does commit another offence, this section will be available for the likes of Mr. Callow.
I have one last thing. If you accept that if you identify this small minority of offenders who commit a disproportionate number of serious violent crimes, and these are precisely the kinds of people we should be incapacitating, then if this legislation allows for one, five, ten, or twenty more dangerous offenders being declared every year--and I think those are probably the numbers we're going to see--that will result in one, five, ten, or twenty dangerous persons being off the streets if they're given indeterminate sentences or incapacitated, and people won't be victimized by those kinds of individuals.