Very good. It goes down, actually, a double path, and that's very good.
The path that I was wanting to go down is the path of the victim as opposed to the criminal who wants to victimize a specific victim. When we were talking to some of the other witnesses, one witness in particular indicated, or there was an overt indication, that we need to consider the victims.
What I'm saying to you is, from the victim's point of view, a person who has exhibited antisocial behaviour towards not only a specific group—which I'm going to get into, hopefully, if I have a few moments—but in particular victims in general, we need to have some closure to their crime experience. Part of the closure to the crime experience is to know that the person who perpetrated the crime against them, him or her, will probably not be able to do it again, specifically or especially if that person has committed that crime before.
I guess what I'm saying is the criminal may be locked up—and you can comment on this, please—physically in jail, but the victim now is locked up in a continuous cycle of fear of being revictimized. I'm referring to those serious cases such as rape and pedophilia and their lifelong effect on the victim. The victim needs to know that at least the perpetrator, especially if it's a second or third time, and in this case we're talking about the third time, isn't going to reoffend.
So while we may concern ourselves—and I'm going to leave the terms to the side—with fear that we're locking up somebody physically, should we not be looking at making sure we don't lock up, emotionally, the victim for their whole life?