See, I'm not an american, as I've mentioned before. I can see both points, and this is my view of the situation, that you are free to call hypocritical, yet I wouldn't be able to offer anything better: Both views are right depending on your vantage point. Yes, criminals as a class/as a whole deserve pity and rehabilitation if they are apprehended by the law. I see no point in just punishing people for extended amount of time, especially because it's proven not to decrease the repeated offense. If someone's in custody and receives the sentence - yes, give them the rehabilitation and help, let them enjoy the second chance and all that - because that would make people more safe, as opposed to less safe, that's a good outcome. However, I would also say - do not expect mercy or pity from individuals you're committing a crime against. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who's a victim of a crime to offer any sympathy or moral consideration to the criminal in the act, and we should not look down at or punish people using lethal force to prevent a crime. IMO and individual has every right to protect himself in any possible way, as long as it prevents him from becoming a victim. I would never be able to accept that sometimes it's better to let someone commit a crime against you to not victimize them instead. Can we have both? My opinion is that yes, I see no contradiction here. I don't think we should have the same standards for the justice system and the individual.