There are several lawyers around the table. I'm not one of them, so if you'll bear with me I do have another question.
My reading of these situations is that the judge's discretion has always been important and that mandatory minimums take away from that. I've read that some folks are concerned with this bill. By imposing the mandatory minimum despite the fact that society is moving toward more and more disdain for drunk driving, as Mr. O'Toole rightly pointed out, there is a risk that by sort of forcing a judge's hand you actually get the opposite effect, and that some folks might get off free because the judge feels they don't deserve the mandatory minimum. Is that a potential consequence of what we have in front of us?