The John Oliver Appreciation Thread

[NobodyHere]

I really wish he was replacing Colbert bbut I'll have to settle for YouTube videos of his HBO show.

[DaddyTorgo]

He consistently hits it out of the park on that show.

And not just from a "comedy" standpoint, but from an actual journalism standpoint too.

His segment on the death penalty was amazing. His segment this past week on the afghan translators was better journalism then I've seen from the "mainstream media" all year.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

He consistently hits it out of the park on that show.

And not just from a "comedy" standpoint, but from an actual journalism standpoint too.

His segment on the death penalty was amazing. His segment this past week on the afghan translators was better journalism then I've seen from the "mainstream media" all year.

+10000

Phenomenal.

/tk

[SackAttack]

Fantastic.

[RainMaker]

His show is good. It's basically concentrated Daily Show.

[ISiddiqui]

At this point the Daily Show is just a more frenetic Last Week Tonight (ie, the student has passed the master).

[chinaski]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Dr. Jane Goodall Interview (HBO) - YouTube

So good!

[TroyF]

I had not seen the one on the death penalty yet. Thought it was done pretty well, but I think he needed someone other than Amnesty International to say it didn't deter crime. There are plenty of statistics and studies that show it doesn't. Don't rely on an obviously biased source for that info.

As someone who has been against the death penalty for a long time, he hit on most of the points very well.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I had not seen the one on the death penalty yet. Thought it was done pretty well, but I think he needed someone other than Amnesty International to say it didn't deter crime. There are plenty of statistics and studies that show it doesn't. Don't rely on an obviously biased source for that info.

As someone who has been against the death penalty for a long time, he hit on most of the points very well.

As someone who hasn't been against it - I found it persuasive.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

As someone who hasn't been against it - I found it persuasive.

It was persuasive and well done. I just prefer to have sources from as unbiased of sources as possible. I know you will never get it perfect, and I know all studies have some bias, but there is plenty of information from people not named amnesty international that it doesn't work as a deterrent.

[SackAttack]

I'm not sure it matters who says it. It's intuitive if you think about it for more than 30 seconds. What the death penalty does is ensure that prior offenders don't have the opportunity to repeat. It also results in the deaths of innocents who get sent up the river either out of malice or incompetence. That's it.

Nobody who commits a capital crime, or who is thinking of committing a capital crime, says "never mind, the penalty if I get caught would be too severe" into the decision. Their whole focus is, in fact, on ensuring they do NOT get caught. There may be any number of other factors which deter them, or which might have incited them to consider the act in the first place.

The possibility of death by poison cocktail in twenty years isn't one of those factors.

The possibility of penal butt-rape, on the other hand? Well, that's certainly a more immediate consequence.

[SackAttack]

To expand on my "in twenty years" point, the way you make the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime is to make the punishment swift and immediate.

Making the punishment swift and immediate means that those innocents who were sent up the river due to malice or incompetence now have no possibility of remedy.

So that's your option. You can have a death penalty which serves as an effective deterrent to capital crime, but sacrifice an unknown number of innocents in the process as a side consequence of state bloodlust, or you can have a death penalty system such as the one we've got, where innocents sometimes get swept up in the net, but thanks to the lengthy appeals process can sometimes wriggle out of the net...and that same lengthy appeals process ensures that the possibility of execution isn't a deterrent to criminal behavior, because very few criminals will consider the ramifications of 20 years later before committing a capital offense.

[NobodyHere]

Do you have any evidence that a swift and immediate death penalty would be any more of a deterrent than our slow death penalty?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Do you have any evidence that a swift and immediate death penalty would be any more of a deterrent than our slow death penalty?

Hard, peer-reviewed evidence? Nope.

But I'm also not arguing on behalf of the death penalty, either. What I'm saying is that when the consequences are 20+ years out, someone contemplating committing a capital offense will not make a decision whether or not to act on the basis of that consequence. If they think about it at all, the focus is on making sure they don't get caught.

If you knew that you'd be facing the firing squad within a week of conviction, MAYBE that deters you from kidnapping someone, taking them across state lines, and raping them. Or maybe it would just leave you determined to get rid of witnesses.

The point is, for punishment to be a deterrent, it has to be immediate. If it's deferred by twenty years or more, the death penalty becomes no more a deterrent than twenty years in stir would be.

That doesn't mean making it immediate WOULD make it a deterrent. That means only that the death penalty cannot be an effective deterrent if it must co-exist with the rights of the wrongly convicted.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Do you have any evidence that a swift and immediate death penalty would be any more of a deterrent than our slow death penalty?

Let's say that DUI was now punishable by death, on the spot. Do you feel that after seeing the results over a period of time that you would feel it was a deterrent?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Let's say that DUI was now punishable by death, on the spot. Do you feel that after seeing the results over a period of time that you would feel it was a deterrent?

maybe not the best example, since intoxicated folks have impaired decision-making skills in the first place. It's unlikely they're making the decision to drive drunk *before* they booze it up.

[PilotMan]

So in that situation you don't think that it would drive a behavior change over time?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

To expand on my "in twenty years" point, the way you make the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime is to make the punishment swift and immediate.

Making the punishment swift and immediate means that those innocents who were sent up the river due to malice or incompetence now have no possibility of remedy.

So that's your option. You can have a death penalty which serves as an effective deterrent to capital crime, but sacrifice an unknown number of innocents in the process as a side consequence of state bloodlust, or you can have a death penalty system such as the one we've got, where innocents sometimes get swept up in the net, but thanks to the lengthy appeals process can sometimes wriggle out of the net...and that same lengthy appeals process ensures that the possibility of execution isn't a deterrent to criminal behavior, because very few criminals will consider the ramifications of 20 years later before committing a capital offense.

1) I think it absolutely means something as to where the source comes from.

2) Swift and immediate? I've heard this line before. What is the problem with that from my perspective? You kill more innocent people. Swift and immediate means sloppy and unsure.

I am NOT against killing someone who has done something horrible. We have 150% certainty that some scumbag slaughtered a couple of kids? Fine, kill the bastard.

The problem is the "150%" part. We make so many mistakes. I don't want to kill support the death penalty because we don't know most of the time.

The other part I disagree with, and something Oliver didn't touch on at all, is the consistency of the death penalty. If you are going to have it, it should be the same for everyone who commits a crime. If you are a white female who murders, you should face the same chair the black killer faces. If you are rich and convicted, you face the same punishment as the poor guy from the slums. Then we need a very clear cut list of what constitutes death and what doesn't.

Rape? Murder? Kidnapping? Child Molestation? Drunk Driving? You may think some of what I wrote is insane, but I'd argue a serial rapist has left more pain and suffering in his wake than a guy who killed his wife for insurance fraud.

Combine everything and I think it's a really bad idea and one I don't support.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) I think it absolutely means something as to where the source comes from.

2) Swift and immediate? I've heard this line before. What is the problem with that from my perspective? You kill more innocent people. Swift and immediate means sloppy and unsure.

that's the point I made, yes. If you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you've got to "crack a few eggs." Otherwise, it's nothing more than state-sponsored vengeance. Maybe it provides some solace for those "left behind" or otherwise injured, if the crime is capital but non-fatal, but the only deterrent it provides is against recidivism from the accused.

The other part I disagree with, and something Oliver didn't touch on at all, is the consistency of the death penalty. If you are going to have it, it should be the same for everyone who commits a crime. If you are a white female who murders, you should face the same chair the black killer faces. If you are rich and convicted, you face the same punishment as the poor guy from the slums. Then we need a very clear cut list of what constitutes death and what doesn't.

You know what the problem with that is, and possibly why Oliver didn't touch on it? The charges one faces are frequently tied to socioeconomic factors. Someone with more money can afford a better defense. A better defense may lead a prosecutor to seek lesser charges, either because that's what she can "make stick," or because that's what he can get the defendant to agree to. The rich white guy has a better chance of avoiding even facing the toughest penalties than the poor black woman does in all but the most extreme examples.

That's what happens when prosecutors are elected officials - like anybody else, they worry about job security. They go hard after the 'easy' cases to pad the stats, and they finesse the 'hard' cases so as not to be hurt too badly. And that means if you don't have resources, you aren't ever going to face the same penalty as someone who does - and, again, that's true in all but the most exceptional cases.

Rape? Murder? Kidnapping? Child Molestation? Drunk Driving? You may think some of what I wrote is insane, but I'd argue a serial rapist has left more pain and suffering in his wake than a guy who killed his wife for insurance fraud.

Some of those are cases where the death penalty, while perhaps appropriate, would incentivize 'leave no witnesses.'

Child molestation is an interesting one. On the one hand, it would also incentivize 'leave no witnesses.' On the other, the way we treat sex offenders in this country is kind of morally reprehensible - either the crime is so heinous that they should be locked up for life/executed, or once their debt to society is paid, they deserve the opportunity to try to put their life back together and become a productive member of society. If consensus is that that's not possible, that's what lifetime imprisonment or death row is for - crimes so heinous that rehabilitation isn't possible.

Letting them out after ten years and then fucking with them so that it's impossible for them to lead anything approaching a rehabilitated, 'normal' life really ought to be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If it's impossible to rehabilitate a sex offender, the proper punishment is lifetime imprisonment or death. Ten years in jail followed by a lifetime of hounding them out of civil society by restricting their ability to live and work does nothing but put other kids/women/whomever at risk of future predation.

The death penalty for child molestation resonates with the lizard brain and makes a certain amount of sense. On the other hand, if we as a society think that the death penalty can serve as a deterrent, we also have to think that the threat of that deterrent could drive the people who commit an act to more extreme levels to try to avoid getting caught.

[NobodyHere]

Salmon Cannon!

[Neon_Chaos]

Just a brilliant piece, and a remarkable interview with Edward Snowden.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance (HBO) - YouTube

[Comey]

I got to meet him in January, when he came to Foxwoods. My girlfriend and I got to go up to his suite, and I got to have a conversation with him about the perception of him in our culture and media, and how he handles it (he said something on The Nerdist back in 2010 or 2011, and I wanted to see if that changed). He was so incredibly nice and generous. He deserves all of the praise he receives.

[NobodyHere]

I love Japan

[Jon]

I can't wait to see what he says about the FIFA arrests and the Blatter reelection.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Jon

I can't wait to see what he says about the FIFA arrests and the Blatter reelection.

It was his main story tonight.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

It was his main story tonight.

[Neon_Chaos]

Here we go. This is awesome.

[britrock88]

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption sounds like the name of a parish I would consider joining for the sake its of honesty.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Here we go. This is awesome.

Just plain sickening the things the government allows to go on in the name of religion.

[whomario]

The fact that he and his team bother to set up a topic for (at least) 7 months (the correspondence) is damn cool.

Loved his bit on stadiums a few weeks back and not just because he called the bluff on the Milwaukee Bucks and their (awesome but also nonsensical) "fear the deer" campaign, characterizing deer as "timid forest ponies with sticks on their head"

[NobodyHere]

I think I found Religion!

Thank you Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption and Reverend Oliver!

[Kodos]

My diabetus has been cured!

[sabotai]

John Oliver puts pressure on IRS to crack down on televangelists - CBS News

[Shoveler]

I look forward to watching the youtube clip from last week tonight each monday. So far I haven't watched one that wasn't both funny and interesting.

As for the televangelist episode, yeah I hope the government can make a few changes to the tax code to hinder or shut down those asshats. Is it likely? I'm not holding my breath. Televangelism is a scam and has always been a scam. Go watch the documentary, "An Honest Liar" to see one of the more inventive ways to part fools from their money, at least until it was uncovered.

[MrBug708]

He has fantastic segments but a portion of society seems to think posting his videos suddenly qualifies as a response in a Facebook/message board setting.