To answer definitively, perhaps not. But in 2002, when I was managing the research branch, we undertook a pretty comprehensive study examining the characteristics of those who were designated as dangerous offenders versus those who were given long-term orders. There were dramatic differences in some important areas. For certain, a conclusion of that research was that those who were designated by the courts as dangerous offenders were indeed high-risk offenders. They had histories of violence--repeated violence. And on the traditional risk indicators that we would assume would designate them as that, they came out quite characteristically like that. So on a continuum of risk, shall we say, those that were deemed to be.... And they distinguished themselves from the general penitentiary population as well.
This report is available. It's been published, and it's on the website.
There is a continuum, and they distinguish themselves, of course, from the general offender population as well on a number of important characteristics that we know are good risk predictors.
To answer the question of whether we think there were some who shouldn't have been, from my reading of it, no. Perhaps others may--