The long-term offender is not so clear. We need to do more research in that area to understand that population. They are quite heterogeneous in some respects. Some of them are serving time in provincial jurisdictions, and then they get the long-term supervision order for us to supervise. They would distinguish themselves, I would assume, from others in the population as well. Because there is so much difference within that group, it would be hard to definitively say that they all should have been there or shouldn't have been there. Again, they might be. Nevertheless, I think that takes closer examination.
What was dramatic for us was that they do distinguish themselves as three populations--the dangerous offenders, those who have long-term orders, and those who are in the general population--on what we would assume to be a very good, clear indicator that there is a continuum of risk, under many measures.