There's just one point I'd like to make. Serious crime—violent crime—produces two reactions. One is fear and the other's anger. Mandatory minimums address anger very well, and to the degree to which people want the justice system to address the frustration and anger they feel, arbitrary and harsh penalties work well. But if we're looking beyond that and want to do something that actually reduces the risks to the community, we have to be more dispassionate about it.
We're all concerned about reducing crime. The question is, what is the best way to use the resources we have as a country to minimize the potential for people to be victimized? To do that, I think we have to be analytical; we have to look at the research. Subjective experience isn't really worth very much, because you just can't put it into perspective.
In that sense, that's our view. We don't want to see more crime. We don't want to see offenders commit more crime, partly because we don't want to see victims, and secondly, because we don't want to see offenders ruin their lives. There are no winners with crime. It's in everybody's interest that the measures we take be effective.