Mr. Goguen said that considering the future aspect of the risk is redundant. We do not share that opinion. A reference to brutality is a reference to a specific act that has been committed. But let us not forget that we are also talking about mental health here. We are proposing the use of the word “future” so that we are not just looking at the past, but also at what may happen in the future, such as a repeat offence. That is important, I feel. It is one of the topics that was debated when we studied this bill.
Suppose that a totally brutal act has been committed. As witnesses told us, the mere fact of killing someone is brutal. We agree with that. But when a judgment deals with brutality in the case of a person with a mental illness, the word loses its meaning. The experts were very eloquent on that. They said clearly that it had no automatic effect on the future. That is why we do not agree that this idea of future risk is redundant.