- The video discusses the botched execution of a convicted killer in Oklahoma.
- The host initially avoids discussing the death penalty but eventually delves into the topic.
- The host talks about the history of capital punishment in Britain and the desire some people have to reinstate it.
- The video highlights the ethical concerns and statistics regarding false convictions in relation to the death penalty.
- It is argued that there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime.

The death penalty is expensive, potentially kills innocent people, and does not deter crime. It costs more to give someone the death penalty than life in prison. The question of whether we should give the death penalty to those guilty of horrible crimes is difficult, but it is a question that needs an answer. In the meantime, people deserve a break and can enjoy watching a YouTube video of a tiny hamster eating a tiny burrito.

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:
http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news:
http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once:
http://www.hbo.com/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver

It's HBO.

-♪ ♪ -♪ -♪ ♪ As you know, our show is dedicated to covering the biggest news of the week, whatever that news may be.

We have a long, proud, one-week history of doing that.

-♪ ♪ -So, what was the biggest news story of this week?

We begin in Oklahoma tonight with an execution that didn't go as planned.

A convicted killer from Oklahoma dies after a botched execution.

You're not going to really do a comic take on the death penalty, right?

It's your second episode, I haven't even decided if I like this show yet.

We don't have to talk about the death penalty.

In the application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen, significant problems.

I think we do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some, some, difficult and profound questions.

Can you not just answer those questions for us?

Because I do not want to talk about the death penalty.

And, judging by the noise that you make when you talk about it, neither do you.

What happened in Oklahoma is deeply troubling.

That's the sound of a man drowning on dry land, desperately hoping for Biden to suddenly walk out into the Rose Garden in an open robe.

And before you turn this show off, there was a YouTube video this week of tiny hamsters eating tiny burritos.

And it's as magical and as uncomplicated as you think.

And if you make it to the end of this story, I promise we will watch it together.

Can someone give me a broad, almost infantile guideline of when they think it's appropriate?

The Supreme Court has already told us that the death penalty is constitutional.

I do believe in the death penalty, but only with respect to those that are guilty of committing the crime.

I think most people would probably agree with that.

Executing the innocent is not really the tough question here.

It's whether we should be executing the guilty.

And let me acknowledge right up front that I come to this as a bit of an outsider.

Britain does not have capital punishment.

So in a way, I really don't know what I'm talking about.

But, in another way, I really do know what I'm talking about, because before 1965, we didn't just have capital punishment, we literally went medieval on people's arses.

The history of capital punishment in Britain is a long and bloody 1.

Since the Middle Ages, those condemned to death have variously faced being boiled alive, burnt at the stake, or hung, drawn and quartered.

And in the grand tradition of British cuisine, if anything, we overboiled them.

We loved killing people so much, we kept coming up with new inventive techniques that looked like they were designed by the Marquis de Sade and named by Willy Wonka.

The small and seemingly innocuous thumb-biter originates in 14th century Scotland.

These devices have almost childlike names, like Penny Winkies.

A delightful English cousin of the Throaty Tug Tug and the Jolly Shocky Buzz Buzz Tickly Wickly seat.

I know that all of this is still technically horrifying, but that's kind of the point.

Because whether you are boiling people alive or putting them to sleep with a tiny injection administered by a puppy dressed as Winnie the Pooh, in the end, you are getting the same result.

Just because the British people don't have the death penalty anymore doesn't mean that we don't want it back.

Recent polls suggest that at least half the population would choose to have it reinstated, which makes complete sense, because the death penalty is 1 of those things that is natural to want, but that you shouldn't necessarily have.

When you can't have it, it's so tantalizing.

But as soon as they bring it back, you think, -"This is ethically wrong." -$1,000,000 should this be allowed in a civilized society?

And by the way, there is your new slogan, McRib.

Because there are things about having the death penalty which might make you a little bit queasy.

What does the United States have in common with Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia?

According to Amnesty International, those 4 nations and China are responsible for 82% of the world's executions.

Look, this is gonna seem like a gross simplification, but any list that contains Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and China is not a list you want to be on.

Ideally, you want to be on 1 of those lists that Finland is on.

Finland is on all the good lists, like, countries with the best pastries, or best countries to host your overseas lesbian wedding.

I know what some of you are thinking, but, John, I hear you saying that most Western countries no longer have executions, but if someone committed a heinous crime, I would still very much like to kill them.

There have been 312 DNA exonerations in this country since we've been doing forensic testing.

how things which were once considered complete, airtight evidence against somebody are now sort of

Is interesting really the word that you are looking for there, Cooper?

Facts found on Snapple caps are interesting.

The Statue of Liberty's nose is 4 feet, 6 inches long.

But facts like innocent people are potentially executed by our government on a regular basis are not so much interesting as fucking horrifying.

Put it this way, if you found that on the bottom of a Chobani lid, that would make a container of Chobani even harder to swallow than it already is.

Statistics suggest that false convictions aren't all that rare.

Just this week, we are learning from the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a study that shows 4% of death row inmates are innocent.

I think you might be using the wrong tone.

Wow, the outrage about this must be off the charts.

I remember a certain Texas governor who felt that 4 individual cases of voter impersonation in the last decade was a moral issue important to address.

I think any person who does not want to see fraud believes in having good, open, honest elections, transparent.

Over a voter impersonation rate essentially close to 0 percent.

So a potential executing the innocent rate of 4 percent must really eat away at Rick Perry.

Your state has executed 234 death row inmates more than any other governor in modern times.

-...have you struggled to sleep at night, with the idea that any 1 of those might have been innocent?

No, sir, I've never struggled with that at all.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ 14 hours a night, legs in the air with a mobile above my head.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Crying when I shit myself, I'm a big baby.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ But, but, okay, okay.

Let's imagine for a moment a magical world where you could be sure of someone's guilt.

What are the arguments for killing them then?

There is no credible evidence that the death penalty is a particular deterrent to violent crime.

Although, to be fair, the death penalty is an amazing deterrent to fishing without a license.

-♪ ♪ -♪ Listen, Todd, I'd love to go with you, but is it worth it?

-♪ ♪ -♪ So, what about the argument, then, that we shouldn't have to pay to house and feed a convicted killer?

An average death penalty case costs the state millions of dollars.

In California alone, since 1978, the total cost of enforcing the death penalty has been over $4 billion.

That's $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out.

In fact, it costs up to 10 times more to give someone the death penalty than life in prison.

So what a death sentence is really saying is, hey, this is America.

And the way we treat the most despicable members of our society is by spending the entire budget of the Lord of the Rings trilogy on them.

So, what we know now is the death penalty is expensive, potentially kills innocent people, and doesn't deter crime.

Harder than is potentially appropriate for a comedy show late on a Sunday night.

But if we are going to answer difficult and profound questions as the president told us to, the toughest 1 is probably, if someone is guilty of committing a horrible crime, and the family of the victim want the perpetrator executed.

Do we want to live in the kind of country that gives that to them?

But it's a question that is going to need an answer.

And in the meantime, a much easier question is, do you want to watch a YouTube video of a tiny hamster eating a tiny burrito, because at this point, at this point, you have fucking earned it.

-♪♪♪ LAUGHTER CHEERING AND APPLAUSE And that is how you end a comprehensive segment on the death penalty.


Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ -♪ -♪ ♪ As you know, our show is dedicated to covering the biggest news of the week, whatever that news may be. We have a long, proud, one-week history of doing that. -♪ ♪ -So, what was the biggest news story of this week?

Speaker 1: We begin in Oklahoma tonight with an execution that didn't go as planned. A convicted killer from Oklahoma dies after a botched execution.

Speaker 0: -... -... Okay, okay, okay. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, wait, you're not...

You're not going to really do a comic take on the death penalty, right? It's your second episode, I haven't even decided if I like this show yet. Well, you're right. Don't change the channel. We don't have to talk about the death penalty.

No 1 is forcing us to.

Speaker 2: In the application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen, significant problems. I think we do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some, some, difficult and profound questions.

Speaker 0: Do we? -♪ You're the 1 that I need... ♪ -Do we really have to do that? Can you not just answer those questions for us? Because I do not want to talk about the death penalty.

And, judging by the noise that you make when you talk about it, neither do you.

Speaker 2: What happened in Oklahoma is deeply troubling.

Speaker 0: -...- -...- I know that sound. That's the sound of a man drowning on dry land, desperately hoping for Biden to suddenly walk out into the Rose Garden in an open robe. Oh, God, Joe. Joe's here. Thank God you're here.

Let's lighten the mood, everyone. Let's talk about Benghazi. OK, OK. So let's do this, then. Let's talk about the death penalty.

And before you turn this show off, there was a YouTube video this week of tiny hamsters eating tiny burritos. And it's as magical and as uncomplicated as you think. And if you make it to the end of this story, I promise we will watch it together. Okay? But you have to stay with us.

You have to stay with us to get it. Okay, so... The death penalty. Should it exist? And what should its limits be?

Can someone give me a broad, almost infantile guideline of when they think it's appropriate?

Speaker 3: The Supreme Court has already told us that the death penalty is constitutional. I do believe in the death penalty, but only with respect to those that are guilty of committing the crime.

Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Bold idea. We shouldn't execute innocent people. I think most people would probably agree with that.

You, sir, are a regular Atticus Finch. But... But... Executing the innocent is not really the tough question here. It's whether we should be executing the guilty.

And let me acknowledge right up front that I come to this as a bit of an outsider. Britain does not have capital punishment. So in a way, I really don't know what I'm talking about. But, in another way, I really do know what I'm talking about, because before 1965, we didn't just have capital punishment, we literally went medieval on people's arses.

Speaker 4: The history of capital punishment in Britain is a long and bloody 1. Since the Middle Ages, those condemned to death have variously faced being boiled alive, burnt at the stake, or hung, drawn and quartered.

Speaker 0: Yeah, We did that. We boiled people. And in the grand tradition of British cuisine, if anything, we overboiled them. We boiled them up. Just...

-... -... We... We loved killing people so much, we kept coming up with new inventive techniques that looked like they were designed by the Marquis de Sade and named by Willy Wonka.

Speaker 5: This is the Head Crusher.

Speaker 6: The small and seemingly innocuous thumb-biter originates in 14th century Scotland. These devices have almost childlike names, like Penny Winkies. Ooh!

Speaker 0: That's right, Penny Winkies. A delightful English cousin of the Throaty Tug Tug and the Jolly Shocky Buzz Buzz Tickly Wickly seat. And... Look... I know...

I know that all of this is still technically horrifying, but that's kind of the point. Because whether you are boiling people alive or putting them to sleep with a tiny injection administered by a puppy dressed as Winnie the Pooh, in the end, you are getting the same result. And here's the thing. Just because the British people don't have the death penalty anymore doesn't mean that we don't want it back. Recent polls suggest that at least half the population would choose to have it reinstated, which makes complete sense, because the death penalty is 1 of those things that is natural to want, but that you shouldn't necessarily have.

The death penalty is like the McRib. When... When you can't have it, it's so tantalizing. But as soon as they bring it back, you think, -"This is ethically wrong." -$1,000,000 should this be allowed in a civilized society? And by the way, there is your new slogan, McRib.

You are welcome. You are welcome. You can have that for free. That's yours. APPLAUSE Because...

Because there are things about having the death penalty which might make you a little bit queasy.

Speaker 7: What does the United States have in common with Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia? The answer is the death penalty. According to Amnesty International, those 4 nations and China are responsible for 82% of the world's executions.

Speaker 0: Look, this is gonna seem like a gross simplification, but any list that contains Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and China is not a list you want to be on. Ideally, you want to be on 1 of those lists that Finland is on. Finland... Finland is on all the good lists, like, countries with the best pastries, or best countries to host your overseas lesbian wedding. And I know...

I know what some of you are thinking, but, John, I hear you saying that most Western countries no longer have executions, but if someone committed a heinous crime, I would still very much like to kill them. Okay, well, let's start with if.

Speaker 8: There have been 312 DNA exonerations in this country since we've been doing forensic testing.

Speaker 2: It is interesting

Speaker 9: how things which were once considered complete, airtight evidence against somebody are now sort of

Speaker 8: being viewed as junk science.

Speaker 0: Isn't it interesting? Is interesting really the word that you are looking for there, Cooper? Facts found on Snapple caps are interesting. Oh. The...

The Statue of Liberty's nose is 4 feet, 6 inches long. Huh, that's an interesting fact. But... But facts like innocent people are potentially executed by our government on a regular basis are not so much interesting as fucking horrifying. Put it this way, if you found that on the bottom of a Chobani lid, that would make a container of Chobani even harder to swallow than it already is.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ And look... Look... Statistics suggest that false convictions aren't all that rare.

Speaker 3: I agree.

Speaker 1: Just this week, we are learning from the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a study that shows 4% of death row inmates are innocent.

Speaker 0: I think you might be using the wrong tone. -♪♪ 4 percent! Wow, the outrage about this must be off the charts. I remember a certain Texas governor who felt that 4 individual cases of voter impersonation in the last decade was a moral issue important to address.

Speaker 10: I think any person who does not want to see fraud believes in having good, open, honest elections, transparent. Well, we take it to the Supreme Court.

Speaker 0: To the Supreme Court? Over a voter impersonation rate essentially close to 0 percent. So a potential executing the innocent rate of 4 percent must really eat away at Rick Perry.

Speaker 5: Your state has executed 234 death row inmates more than any other governor in modern times. Have you... -...have you struggled to sleep at night, with the idea that any 1 of those might have been innocent?

Speaker 10: No, sir, I've never struggled with that at all.

Speaker 0: Nope. I never struggled with it. In fact, I sleep great. Like a big, muscular baby. -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ 14 hours a night, legs in the air with a mobile above my head.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Crying when I shit myself, I'm a big baby. I sleep like a baby. -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ But, but, okay, okay. Let's imagine for a moment a magical world where you could be sure of someone's guilt. What are the arguments for killing them then?

Is it that it's a deterrent to others?

Speaker 1: There is no credible evidence that the death penalty is a particular deterrent to violent crime.

Speaker 0: Although, to be fair, the death penalty is an amazing deterrent to fishing without a license. -♪ ♪ -♪ Listen, Todd, I'd love to go with you, but is it worth it? You've got a wife and children. -♪ ♪ -♪ So, what about the argument, then, that we shouldn't have to pay to house and feed a convicted killer?

Speaker 1: An average death penalty case costs the state millions of dollars. In California alone, since 1978, the total cost of enforcing the death penalty has been over $4 billion. That's $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out.

Speaker 0: In fact, it costs up to 10 times more to give someone the death penalty than life in prison. So what a death sentence is really saying is, hey, this is America. And the way we treat the most despicable members of our society is by spending the entire budget of the Lord of the Rings trilogy on them. -... So, what we know now is the death penalty is expensive, potentially kills innocent people, and doesn't deter crime.

And here is where it gets hard. Harder than is potentially appropriate for a comedy show late on a Sunday night. But if we are going to answer difficult and profound questions as the president told us to, the toughest 1 is probably, if someone is guilty of committing a horrible crime, and the family of the victim want the perpetrator executed. Do we want to live in the kind of country that gives that to them? I would say no.

You might very reasonably say yes. Or, at the very least... No. LAUGHTER But... But it's a question that is going to need an answer.

And in the meantime, a much easier question is, do you want to watch a YouTube video of a tiny hamster eating a tiny burrito, because at this point, at this point, you have fucking earned it. -♪♪♪ LAUGHTER CHEERING AND APPLAUSE And that is how you end a comprehensive segment on the death penalty.

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

Death Penalty: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)