Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, it would have been helpful if you had brought along briefs and information. I don’t know if you submitted any that were not translated, but I must confess that some background information would have helped.
You are all social scientists. You are not members of the legal community and you have very specific information on behaviour determinants, and thus, on the psychological variables which mean that we are more likely to engage in one particular type of behaviour, or act in a particular way, than another.
I would like to have some background information, and to have your opinion in writing on a certain type of information. What do we know? For example, when analyzing the risk of re-offending, do we lean more towards nature or nurture? Are variables part of the equation? Are there some circumstances, which collectively are more likely to lead to recidivist behaviours?
The wealth of social science knowledge that you will impart through your testimony will confirm or refute the fact that the social solution may not be found in law. As some people have argued at this table, we may be dealing with a problem where we should look more to prevention, rehabilitation and treatment for solutions.
In terms of the state of things, the state of knowledge from a scientific perspective, are we more in the realm of nature or nurture? Are there treatments that can be endorsed? What should our response be to the recidivism of dangerous offenders? Is this a question of mental illness or simply delinquency? I would like to have some written information on this topic.