When one is looking at a pattern of behaviour, one has to be very careful. You talked about using a blunt instrument; it's equally dangerous to be over-broad in the type of conduct you're looking at. When you broaden looking at a pattern of behaviour to include such things as extrajudicial sanctions, which are a discretionary measure, to a large extent, imposed by police, or something agreed to at a very early stage in a proceeding, is that going to be helpful and relevant in determining a pattern of behaviour?
One has to recognize that with such dispositions as that, there aren't the procedural protections that would normally be available when one goes to trial or is involved in the justice system. There often isn't a defence counsel or even a crown attorney involved. You've heard submissions about how disadvantaged groups can be targeted by that sort of discretion.
Most importantly from a practical standpoint, when I have a youthful client who is offered extrajudicial sanctions, and the alternative is to engage in a lengthy trial with potentially some very serious consequences, there is a severe incentive to accept the extrajudicial sanctions. On one hand that's good—it's an acknowledgement of behaviour and provides for reparations—but one has to remember, when looking at these EJS patterns of behaviour that's going to be on a piece of paper that may determine whether you're released or not, and may determine whether you're sentenced or not, that there can be an extreme incentive to perhaps inappropriately and against one's long-term benefit accept those instead of the alternative, which is being sought to be avoided.