Thank you.
In a way, Mr. Kramp, you're using a “big brother” argument. You're saying, “My big brother, the cops, say this.” We're pointing to the social scientists. Of course, unless we can come in here with the studies and you do likewise and we can sit and go point by point, all we're going to do is throw buckets at each other and not accomplish as much as we should.
Yes, we have cited the most comprehensive reviews of the literature to say that those police officers are mistaken in reaching the conclusion they have reached, because their examination of the evidence is rather superficial and isn't sufficiently comprehensive. But let me, in the interest.... It's the old labour conciliator in me, and I want to try something with you.
Suppose for the sake of argument we were to say “If you want to have some such punishment, instead of making it conclusively mandatory, how about a presumptive minimum sentence?” It says, in effect, that it isn't the case that it will always be subject to that penalty. What it's saying is that this is a signal to the judges that the legislators in this country think this crime ought to attract that penalty, but if you can find sufficiently compelling circumstances not to impose it, you're entitled to not impose it.
I suggest this to you. We can go back to argue about the statistics; with respect, I think you're wrong about them. But is there any reason on this earth to reject a presumptive minimum rather than a compulsory or conclusive minimum?
I want to lace it in one way. I don't know if you recall my original testimony here. It seems as if it was in another century.
