It's interesting you raise that, because I think one of the things you can foresee happening is that legal counsel will plead that if the legislator saw fit to amend, to bring in the necessity of a prior conviction, then the legislator really doesn't want dangerous offenders to be designated very often unless they have prior convictions. That's the kind of logic that we can foresee will be pleaded. You raise it, and it's an important point.
I think something else that's sort of connected to that is that you can't underestimate the combined effect of this piece of legislation and the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, because you're going to see prosecutors who are going to sit there and say, “Wait a minute, this 20-year-old has two priors for which he got two years, and because of the mandatory minimums, I can't go ahead with this kind of thing.” You're going to see people who aren't going to be applying the law strictly as it's worded in this bill because it won't be fair. We'll be relying heavily on prosecutorial discretion, and what about in areas of the country or in certain communities where the prosecutors just refuse to use that discretion? So that's a bit troubling as well.