Just briefly, it's goes up to paragraph (b) where they talk about the conviction that is the subject of the sentencing, so it is the second.... If this is first-degree murder—in subparagraph (i), it's a first-degree murder conviction—the first one is an automatic 25-year ineligibility. The one that is the “subject of” is the subsequent one, so in other words it cannot exceed 50 years; it cannot exceed 25 years. It's a single sentencing, or ineligibility, so it could be between 25 and 50. I mean, that's the way I was told....
Here's what I did. I told them what I wanted to do. It would be no surprise to anyone here because I've suggested it a number of times. I wrote it out myself, and it made sense when I wrote it. When it came back it was different, but I understood there were other sections to deal with.
Certainly I'm comfortable with proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) and subparagraphs (i) and (ii). I did not think of clauses 3 and 9, the coordinating amendments, and that's probably my fault. I don't agree with Mr. Giokas. I asked Mr. Giokas to see if that was possible and he said it wasn't possible. So it's not like he's new to this.
What I'm getting is that for policy reasons you're not going to go for it anyway, so why don't we just put us out of our misery here.
It's a valid attempt, and I tried.