Okay, let me carry on here.
As I said, this could be a misunderstanding if they're actually safer with what's happening in the courts now compared to an alternative. First of all, everyone we're dealing with in this bill is going to get out again. At some time they're going to be on the streets. Everyone agrees with that. What the public wants is safety. So what is most likely to prevent them from being victimized again, or victimized the first time?
In our last meeting we were presented with a chart—and maybe Patrick could confirm this—that basically suggested that a significant number of people, 34%, who had been through incarceration were likely to reoffend...but only 16% had done a conditional sentence. In conditional sentencing you could have various types of treatment. I'm sure you would probably agree that for half a millennium the traditional system hasn't worked by locking people up, because they just come back and reoffend and reoffend. There has been, as Patrick was saying, some successes with conditional sentencing. Particularly the statistics we had last week suggested that the people on the street who are worried about their safety are safer when a person has been through conditional sentences, by a margin of 16% to 34%.