I want to echo my colleague's remarks.
Nobody's suggesting that for handgun crimes, when there's violence involved, that these people are not going to prison. I think the distinction is the role that mandatory minimums play and their tendency to overreach. From our experience, the fact of the matter is that if you have tough sentencing, but you retain judicial discretion, you will have the punishment.
Nobody's saying that these people shouldn't be incarcerated, but it's when mandatory minimums come in and they have this overreach and a lot of other individuals who don't belong there get pulled in that it becomes dangerous.
I have just a quick clarification on your point about the three strikes issue. I completely agree with you there, but the mandatory minimums I was describing in the paper are equally as focused as the ones you're talking about here. We have a wide range of mandatory minimums, but each individual one, such as the one I mentioned concerning Mr. Weldon Angelos, which was about the presence of firearms during a drug trafficking crime, is often tailored to be for a very specific situation. So I wasn't referring to sort of a broad mandatory minimum. But they are focused pieces of legislation.