Actually, that's a very good question. Generally when we talk about victims, we're talking about the individual who has suffered a personal loss, but it's not just that individual in many cases who suffers the loss. Sometimes they're part of a larger community that is bound together by one reason or another. I very much like the idea of codifying, for the first time, the idea that someone can come on behalf of the group or the community and tell the court what impact the convicted individual has had on that particular community.
In my discussions with Mr. Comartin we talked about the fact that a judge can allow these things. There have been community impact statements. Whether they go towards how they affect the sentence is another matter, but making sure that this is codified and a part of the sentencing regime when an individual is going to be sentenced I think is very important. I really believe it's a step forward. I believe strongly in this, as I do the prohibition provisions. The idea that judges can now say that you'll never be able to handle anybody's money on a professional or voluntary basis I think is a huge step forward, which should commend this bill to all members of this committee and to the House. But this goes along with the ability of people to come forward and say that this is what this character has done to the community, this is how he has devastated us; this is how he has made victims of all of us. I think this is really important to be part of that. They're provisions that I particularly like.
As you and other colleagues have said, these are the complaints, these are the challenges that have been brought to our attention by victims who want to see changes in that area. So thank you again for that question.