I think the bill reaches that balance where it would require the courts to consider that. If the offender has circumstances....
In one of the rulings, the courts ruled that it would allow the offender to be less of a risk if they were able to serve their sentence at home with their family as their support group. That's why house arrest was given in that circumstance in Langley.
Your suggestion is that the offender should have to move when we consider the impact on the victim, and I would agree. The offender could have had their family relocate with them during that warrant period away from the victim. Why should the victim have to move? Why would you destroy the neighbourhood of a victim and a family in favour of the offender?
I would agree that we need to consider the victims, not the offenders.