No, and I'll tell you why. It's because of the broadness of so many offences under the Criminal Code. As I said earlier, a robbery is not a robbery. If the offences were tighter, that would be one thing, but if you don't want it to apply to certain situations within a robbery, then you'd have to say that.
The difficulty is if you exclude it completely, then you're excluding it from that first offender who is 19 and pushes the kid off the bike. A bank robber is probably not going to get a conditional sentence. The judge is likely going to sentence him to jail and the judge can see that. They're also going to take into account the victim impact statements in every case and the feelings of the victims in these cases. Having conditional sentences doesn't mean they're not going to go to jail; it just means that in those lighter areas of a particular crime they may not have to, yet probation may not be light enough. It's an in-between measure. It's something more than probation and something less than conventional jail. It might allow them to keep their job, or go to school, and it might be for a first offender. If it's a hardened criminal, they're not going to get it anyway. It doesn't really take anything away from the judges.