Can the death penalty be executed humanely?
Should we even be implementing it at all?
Why are we talking about this on a comedy show?
John Oliver tackles the tough questions.
Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight
Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would:
Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news:
Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once:
The death penalty IS weakened by the fact that it is NOT performed publicly and swiftly.
Man thinks it knows better than the One who knows the mind of man - how it works.
It is psychology:
With no less than 2 witnesses shall a person be executed.
The first of kin shall cast the first stone (fire the first bullet, pull the trigger, pull a lever, push a button...).
"You shall not pay a ransom for the life of a murderer"
"... so that others may hear and FEAR, and so you shall cease having this evil done among you..."
"... you shall not pity..."
We have become, and continue to become more weak and lenient on violent crime, so crime stacks on crime, "blood touches blood", and "the land is filled with violence".
How is this humanistic social experiment doing for us now?
I like that concept of a botched execution resulting in the death of the convict or, as President Obama would say: "ewwwwww..." (tell me about a presidential quote, this one definitely made its way right between President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and the "Ich bin ein Berliner" President Kennedy pronounced).
This was such lopsided bullshit. Amnesty International is not a credible witness to tell anyone whether there is "credible" evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Even if there was they would never bring it up; they are ideologically opposed to it.
Secondly, the fact we have DNA evidence is actually an argument in favor of the death penalty; it means that "4%" figure -- assuming it isn't statistical bullshit -- can get that much closer to zero. And as the death penalty is only reserved for the worst-of-the-worst, that means 96% of those executed were guilty as hell; monsters even.
Thirdly, there is an army of knee-jerk anti-death penalty types who *MAKE DAMN SURE* every death penalty case is as expensive as possible no matter how damning the evidence is. They don't care how "not innocent" the perp is. Appeal after appeal, after appeal and on and on...
Fourthly, even if you lock someone up for life for decades through legal error, can they get back any of those lost years? Or get over the prison beatings, or rapes?
Jeffrey Dahlmer was sentenced to 15 consecutive life sentences plus 90 years (plus one life sentence from Ohio) because Wisconsin was to noble to execute the guy outright with a lethal injection. He was found sane and quite evil. He was also eventually beaten to death by a fellow inmate with a barbell handle. So, the state couldn't guarantee his-- or anyone's -- safety simply doing their time and he got a much nastier death than the state could legally inflict even if they wanted to.
Which brings us to point five: The state is not allowed to use cruel and unusual punishments of the medieval sort. We do not allow the victims to execute the criminal. It is done solemnly and usually with regret that the asshole in question couldn't make a better use of their lives. Society cannot function if criminals are free to do what they like knowing they will never face anything worse than free room and board.
I took a college class in Criminology, and while there were some interesting theories various criminologists had, the end result was inconclusive; nature vs nurture is notorious for that quality. One criminologist, Enrico Farri, concluded that there was no predicting recidivism and essentially said, "If they commit a violent crime like murder execute them. If they commit a fairly serious crime, put them in prison; if they come back committing another semi-serious crime, execute them!"
The number of people in prison because they killed with an AR-15 is hardly worth bringing up; it's a statistical rounding error. Most of the death-row inmates are their because they used a knife, or a hand gun, or a rope, or poison, or explosives, or gasoline...also their dicks as rape is frequently thrown-in as a bonus.
I am aware of all the points in your last paragraph...I read the article in the link. I simply maintain that you cannot compare Norway to the US. They are totally different countries with completely different demographics.
Last year, according to census numbers America had a population of 326 million people (probably higher). Norway had 5.23 million. There are a shit-ton of other factors in play hiding behind those numbers and it isn't the existence of guns. Some areas of America with the most guns have the least crime, others that try to ban guns have the most even after the ban.
For example, in the US one thing that has remained consistent over the years is off-the-chart black crime; (often black on black.)
Now, the majority of African-Americans are law-abiding, and they make-up about 12.5 % of the population. So, cutting that figure in half and rounding down you have 6.25% remaining as potential criminals. However, since males in this demographic overwhelmingly commit more crime than the females, you would have to cut that 6.25% in half leaving roughly 3%.
Here's the kicker: That 3% is responsible for over half of all violent crimes in the US (murders, rapes, etc.) that's one very busy 3%!
I don't pretend to know the answer to nature vs nurture, but I do know people are NOT the same. They may be equally "presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is a polite legal fiction. Sometimes the evidence makes that presumption eye-rolling. In any case, when the state executes a murder, it is saying a number of things: 1. The lives of the victims mattered. 2. Society will not tolerate murderous thugs. 3. Justice demands severe crimes be dealt with with the only penalty that *guarantees* ZERO recidivism.
It is immoral to coddle evil.
"If they were capable of acting like something other than animals, they wouldn't be in the fucking place!" and yet, they have a rate of 25% to fall back into criminality, whilst the US has a 75%. The main difference with Norway is that unlike in the US, you don't have to worry that your crazy neighbour has an AR-15 and some shotguns laying around. And yes, I'll tell you this, crime isn't written into someone's DNA. So, because you're born under a tyrant communist regime, does it mean you're inherently bad?
There is definitely something wrong with the US system if people are being ass-raped every day and eaten alive or whatever, and that all makes sense, with a 76.6% recidivism rate, it's very logical.
You know what the maximum prison sentence is in Norway? (And quite frankly, in most of the European countries it's something around that, and believe me, we have our fair share of "immigrant scum"), 21 years, and this includes things like war crimes and genocide. This is how long Anders Breivik is going to serve, the terrorist who killed 77 people, in his three-room high-security "cell". And I'll tell you, their prison guards are doing just fine.
Norway isn't the US. In fact, we have very few Norwegians incarcerated in the US...so maybe Norwegians are temperamentally more agreeable and less inclined to violent crime. No, America has to deal with imported assholes that Norway does not; and they are either not interested or incapable of *being* rehabilitated.
For me, the money quote in that article was:
"If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings."
What a joke. If they were capable of acting like something other than animals, they wouldn't be in the fucking place!
Comparing Norway to the US is comparing apples to oranges.
It isn't the US prison system, it's that on top of our home-grown psychos, the US has taken-in so many worthless excuses for human beings it's not even remotely funny. Cuba emptied their prisons onto our shores, and we took them!
I hate to tell you , but there are some people who are just rotten, damnable, and sometimes just plain evil; and frankly, I don't care what their story is. Lots of people have less-than-ideal upbringings that don't commit rape, murder, armed robbery etc.
You also assume that a prison can re-rehabilitate almost anyone. ...And for some low-level offenders it works well enough even in the US. Here, people are free to be as stupid, cruel, and hopeless as they wish. If you were to import Norwegian guards into our maximum security prisons, they would be ass-raped and eaten alive.
I'm all for encouraging offenders with educational opportunities and the like while in prison, but the Norway model wouldn't work for shit in this country. We already have animals on the street, and when we put them behind bars, they know why they are in with the other animals. Society cannot function if predators are permitted to attack society only to get a comfy 20-year free-ride in soft accommodating conditions. It's a slap in the face of justice.
This just shows how backward your legal, jurisdictional and prison system is. In most western countries imprisonment is about re-educating them to make these people functioning members of society again. Most prisoners were just extremely unlucky with their life, they're not born "bad". Look at the statistics shown in this article for example about Norway https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?international=true&r=US&IR=T
The first time I learned about the death penalty I was in 7th grade and we had to pick a small non-fiction educational book. I had read 4 I didn’t find interesting, found the death penalty one and read it twice. (So basically I had formulated an educated opinion for death penalty at 12 years old)
Maybe this is why i’m a messed up almost adult. :P
John oliver: If you stick with us til the end. We'll watch young children eat candy while smiling and also a tiny mouse eating some cheese!
John oliver: now. The black death, ebola, cancer, suicide. Death. and racism
I'd like to think our legal system existed to protect the innocent, not condemn the guilty. For that reason, I despise the death penalty. Unless they steal burritos from hamsters, then hang the bitches.
Ya nothing says protect the innocent better then giving a killer free food and somewhere to live on the peoples dime... Oh don't forget the potential chance of escape or release because well our prisons are crowded cause we need somewhere to put those pesky pot users and the killer has had good behavior the entire time.
If we're to have the death penalty I think I know how to make it reliable, humane, _and_ restore its deterrent effect.
Bring back electrocution.
Reliable: With today's technology and our knowledge of human physiology, I believe electrocution can be made virtually foolproof. The procedure can also be highly standardized.
Humane: When properly administered, I believe it can be done without any pain, awareness, or sensation of any kind.
Deterrent: This would be dependent on the previous statement about humaneness not getting widely publicized. For an execution to have a deterrent effect it has to invoke a level of horror when one thinks about it. The electric chair may well be at the top of this list in that regard. It was scary enough before the movie, _The Green Mile_ , but now the image of Del's execution is burned into the minds of most Americans. Compared to other methods, there is no horror factor in lethal injection, (unless someone is highly phobic about needles.)
So I think electrocution is the best way. It offers the maximum deterrent effect while very possibly being the most humane form of execution, (hopefully not to the knowledge of the general public.) Although, I think it would be proper to explain that to the condemned just before his/her execution.
Tsuyara, you're right, in general. But that scene of Del's execution has become so burned into most people's consciousnesses that it might actually have some deterrent effect. Possibly not, though, I will admit. Actually, I'm against capital punishment anyway, but wherever they do have it, I think electrocution is the best.
"When properly administered, I believe it can be done without any pain, awareness, or sensation of any kind." You belive so? Electricution has always been one of the most messy and brutal ways of execution
Explain to me how it cost 308 million to execute someone. I highly doubt it. But even so don’t get rid of death penalty. Get rid of how it’s done. Granite there are wrong convictions. Even so there are apparently 96% of people convicted rightfully. Those people deserve to die. Not die humanly which if it does cost what he said is the reason for that. Simple solution. Slam dunk case or admission of guilt you are taken right away and have a 99 cent bullet put in your head or instead of wasting a dollar on each of these pieces of shit. Erect an old style hanging platform for one fee of construction and then use that rope time after time. There’s evil people in this world and those evil people don’t deserve to walk among people doing the right thing. They commit an evil act they deserve to die in evil fashion. Stop being a bunch of pussies people. Before anyone says how about if it were u and convicted wrongfully. Don’t care my last words would be I still confess my innocence but in no way should the death penalty be ebolished. If I have to die in order for evil to still be punished then I have no problem dying for the greater good.
The cost primarily comes from additional court trials/appeals that come with death penalty, not the method of execution, although i am still a little skeptical of it being that high. It's definitely not some ultra-cheap alternative to life in prison either way though.
Additionally, you want criminals to confess their guilt, you don't want to discourage that, you just increased the cost of the court trial.
The only reason they're pushing for no death penalty is because these people are making money off of slavery. Not John in particular. Private owned prisons make millions off of criminals just sitting in a cell for life. Prison is like being grounded for your entire Life. Spanking is like the death penalty. Which one sounds better?
Many private individuals, including myself, are pushing for it to move society to a more humane state. Whether businesses make money of off it is a completely different matter. To suggest all of us are just doing it because of that is silly.
Since I was a kid I've always been struck and stuck on the logical/ethical contradiction of at once prescribing murder as illegal/immoral and heinous and prescribing murder as just/moral and a proper solution in due course by the state...
Such an utterly backward belief, legal system, or social norm to my mind.
John has changed a lot of 4 years, but this show has remained one of the most important of the past decade. It teaches important less known subjects to people who otherwise wouldn’t know the unvarnished truth.
Death Penalty cost can be lowered considerably. Firing squad or jail cell with engine exhaust hooked up to it is pretty cheap. Lawyers and the legal system probably account for most of it. Mr Oliver doesn't want to dive into the real issues though...
The death penalty should not be used for one-off cases of serious crime.
The death penalty should not be considered to be a deterrent for crime (imprisonment isn't effective for that either)
The death penalty should not have extremely expensive additional trial procedures that make it a huge waste of money to bother doing. (the penalty itself is not expensive)
That said, I don't see why the death penalty can't be used when it's multiple separate conviction of serious re-offending and no attempt to rehabilitate or provide restitution.
A huge portion of people in prison shouldn't be in prison at all. Another huge majority chunk of people in prison should be working on rehabilitation and/or restitution. If someone's not recompensing society for their wrongs or changing their ways to become a better person, why should they be alive?
A society that has capital punishment says "We think that human life is sacred and the taking of life is abhorrent, so if we find people "probably guilty as we are happy with a 4% false positive rate" we as a nation/state will take your life". It is simply illogical and self defeating, and breaches its own moral precepts. This is why civilised countries have abolished it, and the evidence is actually that homicide rates have improved.
They skipped the part where the British skinned people alive and nailed the skin to the church wall or when Oliver Cromwell chopped off the heads of Irish freedom fighters and rolled them down the Boyne Valley as part of a game!!
The means by which the prisoner dies isn't the expensive part. It's paying for the extra security during the imprisonment and the legal fees given how many appeals and examinations they have to go through in an effort to try to ensure that they aren't actually innocent.
when I was nine I wrote a letter to Rick Perry. I disagreed with the death penalty but I didn't know what to do, so I wrote to him because he was governor of Texas. To my surprise he wrote back. back then I thought it was amazing that he even responded. However when I read it today, he basically said "fuck off, I know what I'm doing, this is as good as it gets". I kept the letter because it had Rick Perry's signature on it
The death penalty is not the problem. Issue is that it costs $300 million, and some of them are innocent and I'd argue almost none are given a "fair" trial. You have lawyers to blame for these issues. We should absolutely be attacking them.
I support the death penalty for monsters. Ie pedophiles, rapist, serial killers, cannibals, etc. Horrid grusome crime's to eliminate those that are no longer human. Why waste tax money keeping these monsters alive with the easy way out, or even the possibility if they escape again. Those monsters do not get ready educated for society. They are mentally ill and pychopathic with no empathy that can be learned.
The problem is the fucking Justice system in America among many things. It's so curropt and fucking bias. The sentences for some crimes are shorter then other's depending on your sex, race, wealth and so on. It can be two ppl who did the same crime and one gets a longer sentence or shorter then the other. Not mention common sense is often thrown out of the court room for alot of crime's and the victim ends up with no Justice. And don't get me started on the curropt in the Justice system alone.
America does not know how to prioritize. Money on war, prison then thier own people or progress of society are put on the back burner for this.
I'm a perfect system or one that is at least functional and true Justice, the death penalty would be perfectly acceptable for those who deserves it. But its not.
“A convicted killer from Oklahoma has died after a botched execution” I mean if he’s dead was the execution really botched just saying the goal was make alive man not alive and they seemed to achieve that 😂
I’m surprised that John didn’t bring McClesky v Kemp. Which was the supreme court case that ruled that the fact that racial bias has tainted the administration of the death penalty is not grounds for the Death Penalty to be considered cruel and unusual. If your wondering according to studies presented to the Supreme Court individuals whose victims are white were more likely to be sentenced to death than those whose victims where black.
Hold on-are you seriously telling me that a convicted killer died after a botched execution? What exactly didn’t go as planned? The goal was to execute him. And that goal was accomplished. What’s the issue?
It costs so much more for death penalty cases because there are appeals, the case goes to higher courts and in the meantime the accused is often confined seperately. I can sympathize with Americans not wanting their tax dollars to go towards the privatized mess of just barely taking care of inmates on a basic level, but the system is so fundamentally broken that people who come in leave more likely to come back like a revolving door and sadly the solution (while not as simple as) does include more money being given. As for capital punishment, if you're found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not just circumstancial, there were witnesses or video evidence, hard evidence, they take you out back and shoot you.
Are we sure that the fox lady near the beginning who says "A convicted killer from Oklahoma *dies* after a botched execution" actually knows that the dying part was intended? She sounds like she's thinking "holy shit, how could this go so wrong that someone winds up dying‽", only without the über-classy interrobang.
I used to be against the death penalty, but not anymore. I believe the death penalty should be saved for people who rape kids, and I'm not talking statutory rape, I'm talking fucking child molestors. I believe that in the case that there is absolutely undeniable evidence, or admission of guilt, these people don't deserve another second on this god damn earth. They are a waste of space, and they don't deserve life.
We have no problem punishing those who commit any crime. But when someone commits the ultimate crime... anyone who can sneek into someone's house,kidnap their daughter during her slumber party,take her to an isolated area,introduce her to the male penis in the most violent and graphic way possible, choke the life out of her,discard of her body under a sheet of plywood and then insult her father at his sentencing,deserves to be put to death. but that's just my opinion.
Tsuyara rehabilitation dosen't always work and is sometimes not deserved. regret has to be found. sometimes it simply isn't there. her death is final and there is no recourse for it. when murders as vile and senseless as hers are committed,there is only one punishment. life is a gift, and some don't live it in a way that is deserving. there should be and is a punishment for all crimes. if you rob,there is a penalty, prison.if you rape,there is a penalty,prison.If you murder there is a penalty,but it should more than imprisonment. it sounds cliche,but the punishment should fit the crime. otherwise there is no justice. IMO.
How to become bitcoin trader? Exactly like Bitcoin, multiple digital currencies exist in the marketplace. So if you prefer to buy a few other currencies which aren`t available on Indian Exchange than you can utilize Bittrex. All you have to do is locate an exchange that you favor. Cryptocurrency exchanges have a massive potential to modify peoples minds and opinions concerning cryptocurrencies generally speaking and their application in actual life. So even in the event the exchange is attacked, its still true that you have your money. Furthermore, the exchanges prepare each and every industry for Bitcoin expansion. Existing stock exchanges will also compete to be able to fulfill the users configuration requirements. Sooner or later later on, the prices will grow more equal, meeting somewhere in the middleyour profit is equivalent to the quantity of convergence. No matter how far it is from Kijun, it is likely to return and test that level at some point. The amount of bitcoin is perpetually changing. In the US, it is 1000 USD. Whats even better, seek the services of a seasoned lawyer or at least ask for an in depth consultation. So youve read the newspaper about the meteoric growth of crypto currencies including Bitcoin or Ripple. Then coming up with 1000s of exchange rates simply to go out and get groceries is nearly impossible. Many cities around the world provide a bitcoin ATM where you are able to trade cash for bitcoin. The cryptocurrency world isn`t efficient.