Debate

I think it should be but... more sophisticated than it was before.
Okay take Saddam Hussain as an example. He was executed and keeping him alive wouldn't have really done anyone any good. But I think only for certain crimes, not like theft and tax crimes and manslaughter, but crimes against humanity in which people have been damaged beyond repair. Like rape or paedophillia. They can ruin people's lives and in my opinion it's unforgivable. But you'd need good solid evidence, because it would be awful to execute an innocent people. Maybe it'd be best to bring it back when there are ways to prove it 100%- like lie detector tests that are always accurate or something. Until then, I reckon we need harsher jail sentences and to get rid of parole. Cause good behaviour doesn't atone for murder, rape or paedophillia.

No killing someone who has killed someone else means they have murdered so they need to be killed, the person who kills them will be killed etc. BUt dying is easy so maybe capitol punishment isn't very good as it doesnt really ounish them, its easy, you just die and thats it!! TBH why bother with it? people argue both sides of the debate, just get over it!