CNN News and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver The death penalty is one of the most controversial punishments in today’s justice system. This method of punishment is still enforced throughout various countries. Despite being enforced and considered the “norm” in differing nations, it’s still questioned as an ethical practice. Media sources provide vital information to various audiences. CNN News and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, both present contrasting viewpoints and similarities in regards to their presentation in interviews, sources, and detail of presentation of news. CNN’s coverage on the death penalty provides countless interviews and sources to inform their audience. For instance, CNN provided interviews with one of Oklahoma’s …show more content…
This media outlet provides direct source of interviews with one of Oklahoma’s justices opinnion and as example of present case. Through this example provided, it can be seen as a reliable direct source for first information on the death penalty policy. The attorney not only presented his case as an example but also explained the state laws that have this policy implicated in the state of Oklahoma. Justice, Stephen Breyer states, "I think, it's time to revisit the issue,". His interview illustrates his view on the policy and suggestion of possible changes in the policy. Stephen Bryeyer also comments, "This is not what people expected when they wrote the cases upholding the death penalty more than 40 years ago,”. His statement underlines the changes that has evolved since the death penalty has been enacted. Furthermore, this media source also outlines the death penalty system in the U.S and presents various medical information background thoroughly. …show more content…
John Oliver evaluates statistics of people against and in support of the death penalty. However, his evaluations are approached with humor while, still remainning factual to his audience. Through the countless specified cut clips from other news sources, John Oliver presents interviewees and gives statements on them. He also uses number of statistics in regards on people against it and in support however, he provides sarcasm along with his statements. He also provides various references in which are presented in joke form as well as personal references. Also provides a wide usage of humor language to capture the audience’s attention. Through various cut clips of different media sources, Oliver discusses and evaluates each. He puts emphasis on them directly and constantly has humourous pictures to compare and reference to. For example, he presents a picture of a medival method of the death penalty to prove one of his points during his evaluation of the methods that have been used in past history. His humorous tone also plays a major role through his discussion on the death penalty debate. The satirical show, Last Week Tonight Show with John Oliver, has bearing similarities and differences to the coverage in regards to news outlets like CNN
...eter, Richard C. “Death Penalty Information Center” A Crisis of Confidence: Americans’ Doubts about the Death Penalty. 2007. 1-30 Print.
Koch, Larry Wayne, John F Galliher, and Colin Wark, The Death of the American Death Penalty : States Still Leading the Way. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2012, Ebscohost Ebook.
In his essay, “The Good, The Bad, and The Daily Show,” Jason Zinser explores the vices and virtues of so-called “fake” news programs. “Fake” news, as Zinser explains, are those programs that blend newsworthy events with comedy. By examining The Daily Show, Zinser reveals both positive and negative impacts that “fake” news could have on society. As a result, Zinser concludes that there are benefits as well as potential problems with “fake” news programs but insists that the true challenge is determining the net impact on society. The essay, which first appeared in The Daily Show and Philosophy: Moments of Zen and the Art of Fake News in 2007, challenges experts on both sides of the argument who either claim fake news is for entertainment only or that fake news is an acceptable source for information on current events. On one hand, Zinser uses expert testimonies to support his argument that the end result is a better informed public but on the other, he makes logical arguments enhanced by examples to illustrate the potential impacts “fake” news can have on its viewers and mainstream media.
The death penalty, a subject that is often the cause of major controversy, has become an integral part of the southern justice system in recent years. The supporters and opponents of this issue have heatedly debated each other about whether or not the death penalty should be allowed. They back their arguments with moral, logical, and ethical appeals, as seen in the essays by Ed Koch and David Bruck. Although both authors are on opposite sides of the issue, they use the same ideas to back up their argument, while ignoring others that they don’t have evidence for. Koch and Bruck’s use of moral, logical, and ethical persuasion enhance both of their arguments and place a certain importance on the issue of the death penalty, making the readers come to the realization that it is more than just life and death, or right and wrong; there are so many implications that make the issue much more 3-dimensional. In dealing with politics and controversial issues such as capital punishment.
In the early 1950’s, the number of executions sharply declined. Opponents of the death penalty claimed that it violated the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents also claimed the death penalty violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. In early 1972, William Furman was convicted of burglary and murder. While Furman was burglarizing a home, a resident arrived at the scene. Startled, Furman tried to flee, but tripped and fell in the process. The gun Furman was carrying discharged, killing the resident in the process. Furman did not believe he deserved the death penalty. The constitutionality of capital punishment in this circumstance was considered in the supreme co...
Throughout the ages, death penalty has always been a controversial topic and triggered numerous insightful discussion. In Kroll’s Unquiet Death of Robert Harris, the writer employs pathos as an appeal throughout the whole article in order to convince the audiences that death penalty is “something indescribably ugly” and “nakedly barbaric”. While Mencken makes use of ethos and logos and builds his arguments in a more constructive and effective way to prove that death penalty is necessary and should exist in the social system.
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
Radelet, M. L. & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 43-61. Retrieved February 7, 2011 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/223436.pdf
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
One of the most repetitive and controversial topics discussed in the criminal justice system, is the death penalty. Capital punishment has been a part of our nation’s history since the creation of our constitution. In fact, as of January 1st, 2016, 2,943 inmates were awaiting their fate on death row (Death Penalty Information Center). Throughout my life, I have always been a strong advocate for the death penalty. During the majority of my undergraduate degree, I was a fierce supporter of capital punishment when discussing the topic in classes. However, throughout many criminal justice courses, I found myself in the minority, regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. While debating this topic, I would always find myself sympathetic to the victims and their families, as one should be, wanting those who were responsible for heinous crimes to
Edward Koch, who was former mayor of New York, wrote an article about one of the most controversial talks called the death penalty. This controversial topic questions if it is right to execute a person for a crime committed or if it is wrong. He made the point that the death penalty is good, in order to conclude that murderers should be punish with this penalty. He was bias in most of the passage, yet he tried to acknowledge other people’s opinion. In this article, Koch gives his supports to the idea to convict a murderer with death penalty by using a tone of objectiveness, shooting for the individuals who opposes his position to be the audience, and have a written form of conviction for the audience.
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.
From the beginning days of the printing press to the always evolving internet of present day, the media has greatly evolved and changed over the years. No one can possibly overstate the influential power of the new media of television on the rest of the industry. Television continues to influence the media, which recently an era of comedic television shows that specialize in providing “fake news” has captivated. The groundbreaking The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its spin-off The Colbert Report have successfully attracted the youth demographic and have become the new era’s leading political news source. By parodying news companies and satirizing the government, “fake news” has affected the media, the government, and its audience in such a way that Bill Moyers has claimed “you simply can’t understand American politics in the new millennium without The Daily Show,” that started it all (PBS).