In terms of the constitutional vulnerability, I think as Michael and Paul have said, the increase of the mandatory minimum is potentially problematic and I think will be subject to challenge. Keep in mind that any sort of sentencing range has to cover all possible hypotheticals, as they've said, from the least types of offences that could fall under that legislation to the most serious. So keeping open the widest range of judicial discretion is certainly the most advisable course of action in this case.
In terms of public denunciation, I also think again judicial discretion is what's really key there, the ability for the judge to look at all the facts of the case, to look at the seriousness, to look at the impact on the victim, and to make an appropriate decision that accurately reflects the situation and response.
In terms of other provisions around constitutionality and around things that might improve our response to victims, you should also know that research coming out of the United States finds that the public nature of those registries sometimes impedes people from reporting their victimization, because not only do they not want to go through the public nature of the trial, but they don't want to have the details of that offence and their identity associated with it, particularly when it's an intrafamilial offence. As soon as it's intrafamilial, you are identifying the victim by virtue of making that public, and I think that's something that I would really strongly caution against.