I have a question for you.
By the way, I thought your article was very interesting, and your submission as well, just like the other witnesses.
In terms of section 649, you proposed that we should create exceptions to section 649 and have the general rule remain. However, what I also understand from reading and listening is that you feel all the presumptions that lead to us having section 649 there, as a general rule, are not really necessary.
Why are you proposing to create exceptions to 649, as opposed to simply removing the general rule on the prohibition and leaving it as it is in the United States, where a juror is free to discuss the case after trial but is not compelled in any way to do so?