Yes. When I look at the provision, it appears to me to give specific deterrence, which is already a sentencing principle in this country, a little more girth or a little more teeth. I envision, and this will depend on the judiciary in this country, that there could be sentences that now say, because of the conduct, this is how this has affected and harmed this specific victim. Even more generally, to use human trafficking as an example, they could say, “You are running a pimping organization out of Motel 6 on the QEW, and that's harmful to our community; therefore, the norm is three years and you're getting four years.”
It is certainly a hammer that could be used. I welcome it. I think “specific deterrence” is sort of a wishy-washy term; “general deterrence” is not very specific. This really says let's look at what the victim impact statement says; let's see if we should increase the sentencing. That's how I propose, or hope, it gets used.