I think the existing law actually handcuffs the judges to that 25 years. Just imagine presiding over a case where you hear about some heinous things that have happened and you look at the offender, at the character of the offender, and you see no remorse. You see a violent person. Then you look at the nature and circumstances of the murder and you say, “My God, this person shouldn't be out of incarceration, because there's something wrong here”, but you can't do anything but give the minimum, the 25 years. This gives the presiding judge an opportunity to assess that.
As I stated earlier, the jury might even have a recommendation that they observe in the circumstances of the case and that they feel would be reasonable in protection of the family. The families are there. The fact is that if you've lost a young child, you might only be 25 years old. You might be dealing with this at 50 and then every two years after that. That's terrible.
This is the intent of the bill: to ensure that we have considered the victims in these violent crimes.