And it is ineffective, to the point that no one researching any of the many countries and states who have had these things—so not just New Zealand—has been able to come to a conclusive answer demonstrating this piece of legislation does anything much. We've got stats going up and stats coming down. Over the debate in the last few weeks, a number of combatants on the other side have tried to cherry-pick a study out of the muddle. To cherry-pick one study one way or another is bad science. The overall picture is what we need, and the overall picture is, at best, inconclusive, or, to give it the technical term, "meh". Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that "meh" is not a good enough reason to continue with a law that, as our highest courts have said in the strongest possible terms, is a continual danger to the human rights of defendants—namely, the right to protection from cruel or disproportionately severe punishment. 