You're listening to serious inquiries only. I'm going to Hello and welcome to serious inquiries only Only. This is episode 232.

I know I said it was 230 last episode,

but I lied.

We had a little mix up in the order of how things were going.

Anyway, it's 232 this time, and we are here for part two with Greg Caruso.

So much fun. I'll give you a little refresher. I had just asked about my definitely

not real plan to kill whoever was responsible for the

Mr peanut fiasco in the Super Bowl. I just want to emphasize that I have no

immediate plans to really do that but under Greg Caruso's system I don't know

maybe it would be different so that is the question that I sort of just doubled down on and

here we are to hear Greg's response to that.

Yeah so there are cases like this I mean a lot of cases actually of domestic

violence where I say a husband kills his wife may not pose a threat to anyone else

in the future in a certain sense because maybe they'll never remarry or they'll never be in a kind of intimate situation where that would be

acquired. Here's where I would fall back on some kind of epistemic uncertainty

which is someone who commits such a violent act.

Their behavior at least initially gives us grounds for incapacitation

because we don't know yet at this particular moment what kind of future threat.

I mean, they could give us their word that you only want to eat this

one billionaire and that's it not buying it parole denied Jamie I don't know I don't

know how much we should take the individual's word on that.

So I think what we would be able to do is at least justify a certain limited amount of incapacitation

...