But, as has already been noted, importantly, in changing the way that there is a recognition of the verdict shifting from "not guilty on account of insanity"—and I'd just like to note the points made by my colleague Ginny Andersen about how what we're talking about here, in the framing of the rhetoric "insanity", is a very legal term, as outlined in the four pieces of legislation that this bill amends. So that is the changing or the renaming of the verdict from "not guilty on account of insanity" to "the acts or omissions are proven, but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity". And that is a recognition of some of the kind of basics that law students throughout this country learn when they go through and learn about criminal law. That is the basis of actus reus, the action of committing the crime, and mens rea, that is, the mental component or the intention to or the competency and capacity to commit that crime. So it can be found here that the action has been committed and, effectively, that this has been undertaken and therefore is a victim of this crime, but still that the offender can be found insane and therefore not criminally culpable. 