Therefore, it was said that the three-strikes law was anathema to that because it was Parliament seeking to apply the law in specific cases. There's an element of truth to that, but of course, sentencing law is an aspect of law, and I don't think we can take that argument so far as to say that Parliament should set no guidance whatsoever in sentencing matters. So that point is fine as far as it goes, but to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense.