This Week (Oct. 20): Eyewitness testimony is insufficient evidence for a violent crime

“There has been very substantial evidence of innocent that has been raised in this case, and I don’t think that it is morally or legally correct for the state of Georgia to execute a man against whom there is very substantial evidence of innocence.”
~Bob Barr, Former U.S. Congressman, 2008 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, and proponent of the death penalty.

In light of the recent execution of Troy Davis, the Phi Kappa Literary Society will be debating the validity of eyewitness testimony in cases regarding violent crime.

Sister Amy Libby will be presenting the resolution, “Be It Hereby Resolved, Eyewitness testimony should be insufficient evidence on which to convict someone of a violent crime.”


Oct. 13: Intersociety Meeting (ISM)

BIHR: Race has a greater influence on American social policy than class

Race: Non-genetic, self identified group that shares a common culture. This can contain but is not limited to skin color, origin of birth, and/or religion.

Influence: causing greater divide between both legislators and citizens.

American social policy: Those laws, taxes, and expenditures enacted by the United States Congress.

Class: (Addressing Bro. Carmon’s confusion) A self identified group that is created based on relative wealth in the United States and named in accordance with their placement in the spectrum of relative wealth. Example: Extreme Poor, Poor, Middle Class, Rich, Super Rich. It is based on self identification and relative wealth as there is little consensus on what is truly poor, middle class or rich and social policy follows the people’s ideas of wealth, not a textbook or the UN.



Presented by Bro. Howard

This Week: We Will All End Up Like Our Parents

Nature? Nurture? Genetic determinism? Stop by PK Hall on Thursday to hash it all out. Following the debate, we will have orations, creative writings, and a few impromptu debates.

From the presenter, Brother Jeffery Libby:

“This Thursday I am tasked with the presentation of the resolution BIHR: We will all end up like our parents. 

“By “we” I am referring primarily to the generation that would presently be in college. This is not to say that the premise of becoming like our parents is a revolutionary or unprecedented fate but rather that the focus will be on people who are in merely early adulthood and are theoretically not parents already. 

“By the terms “will all end up” I mean that the circumstances of our origin dictate a certain inevitable outcome which is to assume in biological likeness and demeanor the very characteristics that are unique to our parentage, to which I am referring, “like our parents”. 

“It will be framed so the affirmative is arguing in favor of the influence of nature i.e. genealogical evidences but also with the exploration of the nurture angle and how a family may condition a child to certain behaviors persisting into adulthood. To counter, I anticipate the negation will argue against the influence of both nature and nurture in the cultivation of similarity with our parents, arguing instead for the merits of free will and individual choice and the power of nurture to overcome hereditary traits.
I intend for this debate to be provocative.

“Feel free to suggest amendments to my definitions, as well as bring your parents in person on Thursday as corporeal proof.”

This Week: Pizzino, Parliamentary, and Presidential

Special Program: 

Dr. Christopher Pizzino will be presenting a short lecture on the modern importance of a liberal arts education.

About Dr. Piozzino:

Assistant Professor, PhD Rutgers University 2008, specializes in Contemporary American Literature.  His teaching and research interests include comics and graphic narratives, science fiction and theory of the novel.  He has published essays on Cormac McCarthy, Frank Miller and Slavoj Zizek, and is currently working on a book entitled Arrested Development: Comics at the Boundaries of Literature.

The Debate:

• Obama vs.Cameron
• Bush vs. Blair
• Reagan vs. Thatcher

Phi Kappa is going old school with a good ol’ Tea Party debate—and we’re not talking about Michelle Bachmann’s government injections! No, this week we will be debating whether the Parliamentary System or the Presidential System is better. Bring your tea kettles and hot dogs because we’ll be debating it up like it’s 1812.

Br. Wheeler will be presenting the resolution, “Be It Hereby Resolved: The Parliamentary System Is More Effective than the Presidential System.”

Br. McDuff will be negating.

Definitions

By “Parliamentary System”, I am referring to a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch get their democratic legitimacy from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined.

By “More Effective than” I mean that the first option mentioned operates in way that achieves… intended results more often than the latter

By “Presidential System” I am referring to a system of government in which the Executive Branch is independently elected by the people, and is separate from the other two branches of government. 

This Week: The International Criminal Court

At this week’s meeting, we will be debating the International Criminal Court. The definitions are below and we hope to see you at Phi Kappa Hall at 7PM this Thursday!

BIHR: The International Criminal Court should be able to exercise universal jurisdiction.

Terms for the Debate:
International Criminal Court, often referred to as the ICC, is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. As of now the Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.

Universal jurisdiction is a principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country.

Should be able: The implication of “should be able” is that if this resolution is passed then the ICC should be allowed to immediately practice universal jurisdiction. This would include jurisdiction over states, such as the United States, that have never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.