Well, I'm sorry if that's the impression I left you with. What I want to emphasize is that trial judges, under the current criminal justice regime, are entitled to consider all of the circumstances of the crime and the victim and to consider what the appropriate sentence is.
I have no doubt that if a single mother steals money from her employer in order to feed the drug habit of an abusive husband, she might steal a million dollars. Should she spend two years in a federal penitentiary and put the court in a position of being unable to consider all the particular circumstances? I can't debate those cases, but I accept fully, sir, that they exist.
Maybe you're familiar with the Angelos case in the United States. In this case, under the California three-strikes law, a person received 55 years in jail for selling $90 worth of stolen batteries. As I indicated, the literature in the United States says that they now believe, supported by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the difficulty with minimum requirements is that they are corrupting the way judges try to do their work.
As for me, I'm confident that our judges do their jobs, and I'm confident that they are treating this problem seriously.