 So thank you for having me and for considering this bill and I want to thank Peggy for her help in facilitating me being here. And the three folks who spoke before Ray William and Caroline I just want to acknowledge that I heard you and heard your stories and thank you for sharing your stories. What you're going to hear from me today is going to be in one particular different than what you heard from the three folks who spoke before the break and yet perhaps very similar. In the summer of 1983 social services managed to get me out of my home. I was about to turn 10 years old, and this wasn't the first time that they had attempted to free me from the physical abuse that was my daily experience and my father and stepmother's home. They had tried before, and they had failed because I had lied to protect the silence that is an integral part of child abuse. I read about the starvation about being locked out in bitter winter weather without proper clothing about being hit. I protected my abuser hiding the nights I slept naked on the floor in the hallway. How I had no friends, and how I had to eat my own vomit. I attempted suicide a few times, but I only did it in ways that could look like an accident because if I failed, I would get in trouble for trying to kill. Fortunately, every single car I jumped in front of stopped in time so I'm here. I couldn't even imagine a scenario in which I would break the code of silence that I lived under that was not even something I could picture. The only reason I got out was because I had dirty underwear and socks. Because I was eating the other kids lunch at school and their parents were packing more food because they were going home and telling them I had no lunch every day. It smelled so bad. There was no other explanation for it. I only got out because my physical condition told the truth. I was unable to speak. And so other people acted and I want to in this moment honor those folks, some of whom may be watching today. I told you the year 1983 because I want you to understand that almost four decades has done nothing to make that abuse less a part of who I am. I wake up every morning an adult survivor of child abuse. I hike the mountains of Vermont as an adult survivor of child abuse. I raise my children as an adult survivor of child abuse. I enjoy Dolly Parton and Bruce Springsteen as an adult survivor of child abuse. It is not all of who I am, but it will forever be a part of my identity. I will always feel her nails digging into my cheek as she grabbed me always. I'm one of the lucky ones. First someone was able to get me out. Those who spoke up for me gave me the gift of naming the abuse, which has allowed me to speak openly about what happened. I do so very often, because I find it reduces the stigma for others. We are not broken is the message I bring we are changed we are molded by our abuse, but we are not damaged goods. Many people cannot speak of it as I do. I speak or write about my abuse at least one person comes forward to say to me, it happened to me to. Sometimes they say it loudly but usually they wait for the room to clear out or contact me later. Sometimes it's the first time they have ever said it out loud. Survivors of physical abuse often get the message their abuse was not as serious as sexual abuse. This is a false narrative that heightens the shame and the silence. For me the saddest moments have to do with the man who talked to me, man in their 40s and their 50s men who have raised entire families. They look at me and they they whisper it. You're the only person I've ever told this other than my wife. I can tell you've only heard that once or twice but I've heard it again and again the shame and the silence for man is even worth worse than for women. They have gone decades without being able to name the crime that was committed against them. And that is because the code of silence is part of the crime it's the heart of the crime. That shame and silence is a prerequisite to the hitting the starving the damage to the body. That shame and silence lives on for decades afterwards. You cannot have a statute of limitations on a crime that by its very nature silences the only witness for decades. As 99 will let survivors know that we as a society do not diminish the terrible crime that was committed against them, and we will not be complicit in the silence that was forced upon them. That is the time the time they need to say the words they need to say. Thank you so much. Thank you. Questions for Emily. Well you're very succinct and. Can we talk a little bit more about the nature of the silence night. Yeah. So, You have to build the silence before you can start the abuse. The child who doesn't understand the never even spoken rule or sometimes not spoken rule of you don't talk. We'll talk. I mean I have three kids, they talk about pretty much everything that happens in my house all the time. And so you have to build the silence first it's built in. It's a time and it's a testing thing right you it's like a frog and boiling water right you start it you start it with the silence you start it with the fear you start it with that. And then by the time the physical abuse starts. You know you can never talk about what happened. You know it in every fiber of your being. It's fear and the only reason that I was able to step away from that fear is I wasn't going back to that house for two months, because the first investigation. The social workers insisted I went to overnight camp for the summer. So they understood the removal and the fact that I mean I would go into the principal's office the first time around. And my stepmother was sitting outside the door. That silence was not going to be broken. And so I was given a gift one that I'm a very open person by nature and just the way I came out was like that. But to that I had other people break that silence and name it and put me in a position but even at overnight camp. I was able to name it when the social workers came to talk to me but when I had to be in the same room with my father and stepmother. I couldn't say it up. Silence didn't say it couldn't say it, even though I had been telling the truth up until then, and we call it disclosing a lot. You know this is something that you know a lot of times I have encountered with with children or survivors is is the capacity to disclose is so difficult because it's such an implicit rule. You know, when Ray was speaking it was incredibly powerful to me because he spoke about so much of what I have seen. And I have become in a lot of ways a very public child abuse survivor. I've written about it and all sorts of really public places I'm a writer and so I've had that ability. And so I become an unofficial helper where I become a place where people can talk about it safely. And it's heartbreaking how hard it is to name it decades and decades later. When you left your father and stepmother's house. Permanently, that was the state of the month that took you. No. State of Massachusetts. And Massachusetts at the time had this thing they just loved to keep the family together. It's an indicator on suffers from that too. Yeah. And sometimes listen like sometimes I get it there's a lot of factors, but it was at the time. You know, people didn't even know if they'd be able to get me out and it was extreme. And so after the state of Massachusetts to you out of the home. I went to live with my paternal grandparents for a short time and then another relative took me. In ship care. Yeah. Other questions for Emily. No, I just have to say that all of this. This and the what we were dealing with with the. The what we were dealing with with the pornography child pornography and stuff. I just, I just cannot. It is just unfathomable to me what we do to children. Senator. Emily, I don't have a question for you, but to you and all the witnesses that have come. You have all been very convincing in your testimony. But Emily, I'm going to single you out because you have a wonderful way of articulating in a very short presentation. Language that I think comes popping into my head as to how to address this and articulate it further. So while I thank all of the witnesses we've heard from over the past two days, frankly, for the passion and your courage to bring forward this conversation. I was, I just want to single you out by saying you have a gift for articulating the message. Press on. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you very much, everyone. Very unique, very unique stories really, even though the common theme but how the individual part of it is so important for us to hear. Very important that we hear this. I'm sorry that the rest of the Senate is unable to hear stories that we're hearing because they have a full understanding of impact. Some of the laws we asked and some of our efforts to prevent child abuse. We focused on child. And did to not look at child. A lot of what I heard today was also neglected. And what I heard from you, Emily, is also neglected. How you can leave that kind of a broken opportunity. Little girl was coming out of her ears. Thank you. Thank you. Keep writing. Yeah. Yeah, I, you know, just going to talk. This subject is even think that what you're doing is going to make a difference with us 99. I'm okay with that. It's the, you know, it's really about, like Ray said, it's the kids to come. You know, when this pandemic hit, when this pandemic hit, and we closed everything down. It was so re triggering for every survivor, I know, because the rest of you, the rest of you saw businesses shutting down. And the rest of you saw education interrupted. And every one of us saw doors slamming on children who were now stuck in their house with their abusers. All of us and we, the survivors, we talk about this, we all know what this year has done to those kids. You know, we, the idea that that door shut and those kids were told school has closed indefinitely you're staying home. I mean, school was the only thing that got you out. And now we've done this. And I'm grateful to the superintendents who did everything they could to try to serve the kids through this year. It was an awful year when those doors were shut and those kids were stuck in that house but it's not, I don't need legal recourse, I'm okay. You know, like Ray writing about it and talking about it and working constantly to pay it forward has has been helpful to me. But I need to know that those kids for this last year where the door was shut will have recourse whenever they find their words and, and, and I need to know that some kid is going to read that you passed this bill, and that you're willing to give them the time they need to talk about it. Thank you. Thank you. Eric. I don't know if we put aside some time next Wednesday and might be better I don't have any changes to make right now. I am. Do we know what one technical piece. Yeah, yeah, just just as a starting point. You may recall that there was testimony that I think there's been fairly consistent testimony about the possible ambiguity because you remember the, and I can pull up the bill for a moment if that would be helpful. Let's remind everybody of the language. Although actually it's it's really in, in the statute remember that the way the bill defines assault is with reference to the criminal aggravated assault statute. Yeah, remember that. And there was, and there was language in that statute regarding attempts that made it kind of ambiguous as to what that really meant. Yeah. So I think, at least from a technical, just sort of one possible amendment for the committee to think about in response to that is to redraft the language, just so that the attempt stuff is is taken out. So that doesn't doesn't preserve that ambiguity. I think that would respond to the concern that was expressed by folks. Yeah, I think you're going to go back 40 years and try to prove an attempt. Right. Exactly. It's going to be different. Difficult to know, you know, take Carolyn's case 1950s. It's going to be. I don't know how you could watch. Right. But I had a thought of how to how to reword that so that the. I'm sure you can. That's one of your, one of your many talents. Thank you. But I get that. And how does one prove I mean, I can think of somebody's whose arms broken. Maybe there's ways to prove that. Some of the other physical abuse. Do you know of where there are not cases on the child sexual abuse. That problem is proving. I think that, that, you know, absent cases where the evidence is obvious. Proof is always, always going to be an issue. And I'm sure that there's a lot you can do about that. The, but to the extent that you can have other contemporaneous witnesses. You can have the fact that somebody mentioned it to somebody else contemporaneously or even that they've mentioned it to somebody else, sometimes since then. Those, those factors can go into supporting someone's claim. You know, there always has to be some evidence that the claim happened. But I think at least by removing the statute of limitations, you've allowed that evidence to be gathered and presented in a way and now now it can't even be presented. So, you know, to the extent that there's anything available you've at least made that ability to present that to a court. What are the statute of limitations on reporting physical abuse. Well, I don't know that. Yeah, I don't. It's really a misdemeanor to fail the report. Then I think it would be the ordinary statute of limitations on crimes generally is three years. I'm wondering if. But. On the side of this. If someone could prove a pattern by an institution. Urging failure, urging to not report. Physical or sexual. Right. It sounds like current that itself, at least at some point in its history. Through the Catholic church as well. Obviously evidence. Their failure to report abuse. They established I'm trying to think of the words, but I guess the word would be a culture where you did not. I'm again, some people saying that they were, you know, if you, if you report that I broke your arm out. I'll cut you up in pieces and throw you in the current as well. Right. Right this morning. But I'm, I believe that that may have been a culture there. Not reporting. Which is. Yeah, it sounds like at least at some time at some point in its history. I think also there's a, there's a general principle with respect to statute of limitations. I think attorney O'Neill might have mentioned it last week of concealment. So the statute of limitations doesn't run while someone is concealing the wrongdoing or the claim. So it's called tolling is the legal term that's used to LL. But it's for example, a statute of limitations is told while someone is a minor. So it doesn't start running until someone turns 18. Similarly, while someone is concealing that someone has a claim or the concealing the facts underlying it. The statute is told. So it could well be that there might be a claim for failing to report. But it's based on the fact that they were concealing. Which it certainly sounds like from the testimony of the committees heard exactly what was happened. I have one other question for the committee to think about just because it's also come up a lot from the testimony and it was a drafting question. Was whether is the emotional abuse issue. And now that's it. I guess we had different one that wouldn't be covered by the assault statute, but I think that's not something to answer now, but just wanted to. I looked at some of the statutes regarding abuse. There's the vulnerable adults as some emotional abuse. But I think that would be much harder. I think that's right. Correct. And I would. I'm concerned about unintended contact. Having been sued my own life. That wasn't the thing to go through. Even if you're not guilty. Yeah, I think you're right that the proof issue that you were mentioning. Much more difficult. And on promote for all parties when it comes to the emotional side. I'm certainly happy to look at it. But I think. Is there anywhere else? Oh, do you know? On the civil arena. I know we need to tweak this to some extent just to make sure it's okay. I would like to be able to leave Ray and Emily. And Kim with the understanding that we are all moving in the same direction, even though we end up with some tweaks that have to be made those tweaks are very minor. The way we're moving forward, I sense there is unanimity in the committee. That goes along with where all these witnesses have been begging us to go so I would hate them to leave the screen wondering if we're going to get hung up on some technicality because I don't think we're gonna. We'll iron those details out. You know, at the end of the day. Proof is always a burden. And it doesn't matter what we have for the target be it sexual abuse or physical abuse or emotional abuse. It is always up to the plaintiff to construct a case. I see this bill as simply enabling them to enter into the process and try to make that case. As a defense attorney, I'm also cognizant that there will be defense attorneys down the road who are trying to battle from the other way. But at the end of the day is always up to the trier of fact to decide who wins all that we're doing is we are opening up the door for somebody to make a case that currently is closed to them. Don't leave it there. I appreciate that. I haven't. The best of my knowledge I never physically did restraints. I may have made some mistakes. mindful that somebody. Yeah, I think though the difference is that they're going to have to be in assembling a case. Something of substance. Not just a mere allegation. Because if you don't have the substance to back up the allegation in all likelihood a defense attorney is going to convince a judge that there's no merit to the case. But at the end of the day, that that gatekeeper the judge is still there to protect interests of folks like you who may have that accusation made. And, you know, I remember one time it was a staff member who or simply removed the kit from the windows he was trying to remove himself from the building through the window and get alleged that the staff member had used him up the window. The DCF was called. They did an investigation. Just been doing his job. But, you know, that's, that's like an allegation we do have at least hopefully there's some record of that. I don't think there was any. Think about it, that nervousness that you have as somebody who could be sued is palpable. In the current situation of where our statute of limitations would allow that kind of an action to be brought. We are always going to have situations where we are uncomfortable. But should we deny someone with a valid claim to bring it beyond the present limitations of our statute of limitations. I wasn't suggesting that I would oppose. I was just reminding, you know, just thinking of my own situation. I was just suggesting the you might have some comfort in the idea that their case did not amount to abuse at the time that you initially heard about it. And in my eyes, wouldn't amount to abuse 30 years down the road. I'll also mention it. I was one of the fortunate ones adopted mother who was incarcerated, you know, 18 months in series of foster homes. We do know that because I'm back to find my history. Lucky. I was never to my knowledge of an institution. Part of what drives me on this. Anyway, if we could. Take a go back to 128. We're at. 128. That's the panic defense. Oh yeah. Thank you all again for having me. Opportunity to have the survivors. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great as well. If you. Tim, if you want to stay in touch with Eric and myself on any. Suggested. I want you to take a look at. St. Joseph's. I think supporting the survivors is one thing we can do almost immediately. And I appreciate that so much on behalf of all of them. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And I think that's based upon what you all are talking about and just we're talking about with respect to. Failing to report. And the pattern and procedures of that. I'd be happy to share with you. At another time. God next Wednesday. I believe. And 45. Be a great time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All the folks who testified today. I appreciate it. I know the committee does. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. They were, they were powerful and brave. And I commend them for it. They were. Thank you. Take care. Bye-bye. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Dick, did you. You cut out. Did you. Say we were taking a break or not. No. Okay. It seemed, it seemed like you did. And then your voice. Oh, I'm sorry. Fuzzed out. I couldn't tell. Sometimes your voice. Yeah. Because you lower your voice and you're so far from the mic. We can't hear you. Trying to be close to. What happened. You, you lower your voice when you're. I go. Yeah. I remember like that. Yeah, I know. Yeah. So one last. Quick question before I go centers. That was, are you, am I right that we're so we're going to do markup next week? You're not going to look at a new draft yet. Sort of. Markup next Wednesday. Okay. But you could do a draft. We definitely want to make sure attempts are not. Right. So I think you could do that. If you want to think a little bit about on the issue of. Manitored. Orders in an institution where it's proven that the culture is. Sure. Hope that has changed. I mean. I mean, you know, even in schools, there was something. Not that long ago whereby you had to go through the staff rather than a teacher calling direct. And that changed too. In our education committee that got changed. We could do, you know, something in the bill to clear. I don't know. It seems like there was a culture to not report and I think we ought to address it even if it's. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. All right. Sounds good. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. You're. Joined by. Here. Looking back at that. 8128 again. Which I believe we're scheduled to take up again next Friday. Hopefully to. Make. Final amendments. I guess. We were. We were talking about whether or not. What impact it has to be discussing. The differences between sentencing and prosecution. Or how do you. I mean, defendants have. All kinds of. Things that a judge might take into consideration. When. Making a decision. And. The question is, should they be able to. Bring the panic defense. Is there anything else we deny the defense, the right to. Raise. Anybody. What, what do we. The example I brought up earlier. For the record, Bryn here from legislative council. The, the, what I brought up earlier was the rape shield law, which prohibits. The defense from introducing certain types of evidence. About a victim's sexual history. In a case. Is that's one example of evidence that we, that we don't allow it to be introduced. Could the defendant. Could a defendant raise. So that would be introduced by the defendant. In order to demonstrate something about the victim. As a, as a. As a defendant. As a defendant. As a defendant. As a defendant. At sentencing. At sentencing. Or at. So the, the rape shield statute applies to. The criminal trial. Prohibiting that the introduction of that evidence at the criminal trial. What about the. So. My reading of that statute is that it applies to the trial. If it wasn't introduced at the trial, I'm not sure that a judge would have it at the sentencing proceeding. Since it is. It wouldn't be a partner. I'm thinking of. You're a defendant who has been. A victim of rape. And you killed. Somebody. Because you were. Because they were. Something to rape you or. Out there. Wouldn't you be able to use that as. Yes. So we, will you tell me that fact pattern again? I'm sorry. The defendant killed. Somebody whom they thought was trying to rape. Oh yes. So that. Right. That would be a self-defense. Right. And you could use all that information. Your, your history. You will rape them. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. You can use all that information. Your, your history. You will rape this. You can use all that information. In the sentencing phase. Right. Yes. Introduction of the evidence of your own sexual history. Yeah. Yeah. Somebody who. I'm confused. Can I. Yeah. Yeah. Senator White. So I just, I'm. Little confused here and maybe Joe can help me about how this actually happens. At a, at a trial. So you're prohibited from. Introducing certain things during the, the actual trial. And that's the rape shield. And, and in this case, it would be. The, the panic defense your, you can't introduce it at trial. When it comes to sentencing. Can only things that have been. Introduced at trial. Be permitted to be told to the judge. I'm. My. Me or my attorney. At sentencing. Can I introduce. The state of my mind or. Something else to the judge that hasn't been brought up at trial. I guess I'm, I'm confused here because it seems to me that you want the judge to have. Lots and lots of information. Yes, I did this, but I have been going to rehab now for. The six months since I was charged with this and I'm. I don't understand how that works at an actual trial and the sentencing phase. The only easy way to describe it, Jeanette is at the trial phase. You are talking about guilt or innocence. Right. Doesn't go beyond that. We have given limitations to what kind of evidence can be produced to determine guilt or innocence. And when you get to the sentencing phase, you are now trying to develop. A plan of action. To accommodate. The person who has been convicted. It's a totally different. Environment in my eyes. I off the top of my head. I cannot recall any time where I've been prevented from introducing something. I'm not aware as I'm sitting here of any law that would. Prevent me from introducing something. The judge is free to discard it and say, I'm sorry, I just don't buy into what you're giving me as an excuse of whatever kind here. But we've never limited to my knowledge. The ability of a judge to consider something or reject it. If the judge feels that's appropriate. Remembering this is no longer about guilt or innocence. It's about what do you do with this individual who has now been convicted. And when we as a legislature try to fashion legislation. That. Really ties the hands of a judge. That I'm very uncomfortable going down that road at all. That that's not just bad in this situation. It is the potential for future tying of a judge's hands. Based on emotional reactions to a given. Societal ill at any moment in time. And I find that very troubling. And if Phillip is correct that in fact, the house language. Is allowing that to be carried over into sentencing. And I'm thinking that I've got to take another look at this bill, because I'm just not feeling comfortable going down the road. We're going. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah. This discussion really makes me feel like we need testimony from. Judge Greerson at least. Because I, I take Joe's experience, but I share some of. Senator White's questions about how the process works. And I would, I would be. You know, personally comforted to hear what, what judge Greerson. Thinks of this. I'm not sure. Brent, do you know if he testified in the house on this? No. I don't believe that he did testify on this bill in the house. I, I would like to share with the committee at a case. The provost case. That provides that all. All facts that. That pertain to sentencing have to be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. At the trial phase. So I would just, I would, I understand that there are certain things that come in at the sentencing phase that may not come in at the trial phase. But I think any facts that are relevant to the actual determination of all of the elements of the crime do have to be established. Beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. So I can share that case with the community. Brian, I just want to. Caveat to that, that I'm pretty sure that case. Is what limits the prosecution. The prosecution cannot bring into. A sentencing phase. Allegations that have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So I think there's a strong difference between how that case applies to prosecutors trying to bring in things at sentencing. As opposed to the defense bringing in something. Because the defense is not required to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. At any stage. Under, under, said. The prosecution cannot bring into a sentencing phase. Allegations that have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So I think there's a strong difference. Under under said. But I would, I would go back to the point I made earlier. If you don't include the sentencing phase. As I understand it, the sentencing phase part of the, the point is to introduce mitigating. Factors. So that a judge might say, okay, I'm not going to give 20 years. I'm going to give five years because of these factors. And then we'll see. Where you might. Very likely have. Defense attorneys. Trying to mitigate the sentencing with the panic defense. So if we, if we leave that in place, I just feel like. The rationale for the bill is severely undercut. Let's think of the, can I just raise an example? And then I know we're not going much further. charged and convicted of a rape, of attempted rape, I believe, of a young girl who was unconscious and he was charged with that and convicted somebody, someone stopped him in the process of the rape. When it got to sentencing though, the judge decided because he was such a good swimmer and because he had no other convictions, I think they gave him a suspended sentence or six months or something. It was a very light sentence. It became a pretty high profile. So at that point, the judge took all kinds of extraneous information into the count in determining us what appears to be an extremely light sentence. I believe the judge lost his seat, aren't I? Yeah, I think well deserved, but I only raised that because it sounds like stuff that was never proven a trial. I'm not sure that it ever came up during the trial whether it was a good swimmer or not a good swimmer, but that made a bit of difference. Good student, bad student. I'm just curious about that. There is a great danger of trying to create legislation based on a rogue judge's actions. I will join with Philip and say that we should hear from Judge Greerson because in my mind, this is no longer determining guilt or innocence. This is what do you do with a person who has been convicted? There are many different factors that come into play, but to deny outright at the get-go the ability of a defense to present some kind of mitigating discussion, to me that's one hell of a big step. And I just can't go down that road, so I'd love to hear from Judge Greerson. Well, we're all agreed that the House bill did provide for consideration, and the panic defense is part of the defense. That's how I read the House version, yes. So for us, the question is whether or not it should, the language that was used in her amendment. I would go even farther than the House versus the amendment that Bryn did for us, because if the House bill includes the sentencing, then I would want it explicitly taken out, depending on what we hear from Judge Greerson, because I am very nervous about not being able to introduce anything from the defense at the sentencing hearing. I mean, if you find that the person is guilty, but then find that they have been, and I'm not talking here about this defense, but find out that they are guilty of doing this, but they've been in rehab now for six months or a year and haven't used or haven't done anything that might have an impact on what the sentence is. I'd be very nervous about telling judges what they can and can't look at during the sentencing, because I think we can begin to put restrictions of all kinds then on what they can hear and what they can take into account when they're sentencing, as opposed to whether they're guilty or innocent. And I see what you're saying, Jeanette, but I guess my way of looking at it is this bill wouldn't in any way say you can't take into account somebody's history in a substance abuse program or other relevant data. What it would say is that if someone is convicted of violent assault or murder against a person, and then at the sentencing phase, they say, well, I've been convicted, but I did it because I found out they were gay, and a judge agrees that that should mitigate the sentence. That's inherently bigoted. It's inherently... I just view it as something the system shouldn't allow at any phase. It's a qualitatively different thing than information about somebody being an otherwise good member of the community or completing a program of treatment or something like that. I would just say that judge would end up in the same situation as the swimmer case that Dick was talking about. Maybe. Depends where they're sitting, you know? Well, in Vermont, I think... We're sitting in Vermont. Yanked out of the retention committee in the heartbeat. Vermont has different attitudes in different places. That's our jurisdiction. Right. Just saying that, again, we're back to there are all sorts of bias and levels of bias. What this bill is trying to do is take that bias out of the picture. But I see what you guys are arguing, and I think Judge Greerson's perspective would be real helpful. The problem here is that this is a particular bias, and it is a particularly obnoxious bias. But if we try to limit things that can be presented that have any bias by a judge, I mean, I don't know where else this would go. I'm sorry I shot him, but I really live in fear of politicians doing bad things to our world and to me. And so I shot him because he's a politician. And then we say, well, you can't introduce that. I mean, I think this is... And the other thing I would... I think that what we're doing here is... And I think this is an obnoxious thing for a judge to do to base it on that. But we're looking at these three really high-profile cases. And I thought what we heard from Rebecca Turner was that all the cases, if you take the totality of the cases in which this has been used, oftentimes the sentences were higher. But we're looking at the three really high-profile cases and kind of basing it on that. And that always makes me very nervous when we do that around particularly high-profile cases that we find repugnant. And so we should... If it's true that there are many, many, many, many cases out there where it didn't work in that direction, we should take that into account as well. That's the final word.