Let me stop you. A “serious offence”, I agree, is any offence subject to five years or more. But that's a different issue. I'm simply talking about the definition of “violent offence” and trying to understand why it makes a difference to you to allow a judge the discretion to impose a custodial sentence.
If, for example, as in the case that was described to us the other day, someone shoots off a gun in the area of young people, perhaps without any intention of hitting someone but perhaps endangering their lives, section 39 doesn't say a judge “must”; in fact, section 39 says that even if it's a violent offence, the judge has to explore other alternatives, and only if there is no other alternative but custody, then—