"All serious criminals should be hanged," according to some people who want to see justice done. Some people, however, seem to be opposed to death penalty, apparently out of human love. Most people nowadays choose to stand somewhere in between the two extreme points of view.
The rejection of capital punishment is actively voiced by mostly human rights and religious sectors. For them, it is not acceptable to execute a person, the practice being the old-fashioned principle of "an eye for an eye." It is argued that death penalty alone does little to prevent crimes from taking place. As an alternative, "life without parole" is recommended. In other words, death penalty is simply out of date. This view appears to have been gaining votes around the world. As of now, more than 60 percent of countries and states, including the European union , have reportedly ruled out the practice.
The defense of capital punishment has a different story. Death penalty has historically been practiced in virtually every society, serving as a real deterrence to serious crimes. The logic is obvious. It removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of society. It is also self-evident that dead criminals cannot commit further crimes, either within prisons, or after breaking jail, or after being set free. The execution makes economic sense as well, and the sooner the better, because of huge cost involved in long keeping dangerous criminals behind bars.
To sum up, in consideration of the controversy, putting criminals can only be viewed as a "necessary evil." In the name of justice, execution must somehow sometimes apply, although in a different manner and with a careful and after a fair trial. Thus, once convicted, horrible killers, series rappers, and other big-time evil-doers trapped in drug trafficking and organized crimes, do not deserve a prolonged life. It is, nevertheless, always advisable to distinguish really dreadful crimes and those crimes, while still homicide, are much more understandable.