1. Make the case for whether mandatory minimum sentences, the war on drugs, and sexual predators, are examples of policy grounded in empirical, ethical, or ideological grounds. Why did you decide the way you did?
  2. Given the huge negative outcome of prisoner disenfranchisement, what are some reasons to stay the course? Why are some reasons to eliminate it? If correctional supervision is “enough” punishment, why do we continue to punish after release from supervision?
  3. Read A Closer Look (p. 193). Debate the advantages and disadvantages of an austere prison condition compared to one with more amenities. Which serves a more practical purpose? Which is more ethical?
  4. Describe some of the ethical reasons for detaining sex offenders after they are released from prison. Compare that to the cost benefit analysis of such policy. Which produces a better outcome? Why did you decide that?
  5. What are the advantages and disadvantages to considering the moral legitimacy of torture under a time bomb scenario? Would you be supportive of such an approach? Why or why not?
  6. Do you think the US has a better chance at “winning” the war on terror from a consequentialist or nonconsequentialist perspective? Or, would you suggest some other ethical system as a framework?
  7. Does the principle of double effect really justify antiterrorist activities, as suggested by Bauhn? How might Walzer respond to this question?
  8. Do you think a hard line criminal justice approach, as described by Wilkinson, would be sufficient to combat terrorism? Would it be effective with some forms of terrorism over others?