I guess I'd have to say that it's not a simple question. I appreciate the difficulties of trying to explain these very complex questions to the guy at the Tim Hortons or wherever.
The kinds of concerns I've discussed are concerns that we've heard from prosecutors who actually have to prove these cases. It's not an esoteric or academic position they're taking; it's a matter of looking at the kinds of challenges they face all the time and saying we're just not sure that it would help, and it could raise a whole new host of challenges. They have some concerns with trying to deal with it that way.
What I'm saying is that I don't think there are any simple answers, and this certainly raises as many challenges as, I think, it does opportunities. As I've said, we haven't concluded our discussions on the issue, but we've certainly heard a lot of reasons to be hesitant about embracing the idea.
It is a very complex matter, but maybe the one simple thing is that if you're going to make certain consequences depend upon showing that somebody is committing crime not as an individual but in connection with a criminal organization, then there's going to be an evidentiary burden and challenge to show the link between what they're doing--drug trafficking on the street, extortion in somebody's office, or whatever--and a criminal organization. You want consequences to flow from that, so there is going to be a burden in showing that additional element and then asking for criminal consequences to flow from it.