Thank you.
The public watching this must find it bizarre that the department has a process that has determined it's not manifestly unconstitutional when a majority of our esteemed legal witnesses have said it is.
I have just one short question. The points they bring up are related to the arbitrary detention and the Constitution, because they'll be arbitrarily detained if they can't somehow prove they're not going to offend again. And how would they prove that?
Second of all, they say it offends the proportionality principle in that of course he already has a sentence for each of the three crimes. So the additional detention would be non-proportional to the crimes.