I have a second question. How do we explain that there were only 33 convictions in five years? Does this mean that the alternative measures are effective? Does this mean that, in the end, there is no need to proceed with an enhancement of the Act? Can't we assume that everything is just fine and dandy and that, in the end, very few offences or penalties end up as convictions? Thirty-three convictions in three years is not really a significant number.
On November 27th, 2006. See this statement in context.