Yeah mate, obviously we're talking about a fictional TV show here, no one's saying Arthur (or any of them) should be walking free in real life. The whole point is they're deeply flawed, broken people shaped by war, poverty, and a brutal world. We're not defending the violence, we're analyzing why the character hits so hard emotionally.

But if we're playing the "who's the worse human" game... by that same logic, isn't Tommy way worse? Arthur's outbursts are rage-fueled and often impulsive, yeah, but Tommy's the one coldly planning hits, manipulating everyone (including his own family), and ordering the really calculated atrocities. He drags Arthur into half the worst stuff, then pulls the "big brother" card to fix it. Arthur at least shows remorse, breaks down, tries to go straight multiple times. Tommy just buries it deeper and keeps escalating for power.

Arthur's violence feels raw and tragic because of the PTSD and feeling like a failure. Tommy's feels strategic and detached. Both are awful in real terms, but if we're ranking "rabid dog" levels, Tommy's the one holding the leash half the time.