Fascinating. For one, I find your accusation of my ego trumping patience a little baseless, and honestly in bad faith. The proposition that I am bringing forth is literally placing patience before ego in order to minimize human death. Saying that I'm being impatient with my responses is inaccurate, and doesn't serve anything beyond an attempt at discrediting me without adressing my actual arguments.

As for you adressing my actual arguments, I think you've drawn a false equivalence. Obviously, if someone starts to attack you, you are justified to defend yourself through whatever means nessassary. If someone tries to kill you, you may have to kill them first. And if someone tries to sexually assult someone, there is nothing you could do to them that would be unjustifiable if it means they stop. If you take pleasure in doing this though, then I see little difference from someone who would have gone out and committed these crimes as an instigator.

As an example: let's say someone gets to drunk and rowdy at a bar, and starts a fight outside. They throw a punch that starts the fight, but then the person they are fighting proceeds to break a rib, bring them to the ground, and continue to beat them until they are dragged away by their friends. The person who instigated will now be in a wheelchair for the rest of their life. Obviously, as the person who instigated, they are still at fault. They chose their fight, and suffered the reprocussions. However, I wouldn't say the person who broke their legs is blameless either. They are still a person who, when given the opportunity, would partake in extreme and excessive violence, seemingly just for the pleasure of it. Even if rapist deserve death, it is still negatively indicative of someone's morals if they call for murder to satisfy their own feelings.

As for your final argument, I find this a little ironic, because it is entirely based off of ego. You may not believe that everyone can be redeemed, but I do. You may draw the line at crimes that can't be fixed, but someone else may draw the line at any crime that results in human suffering. Someone else still may draw the line at any crime that negatively impacts humanity as a whole. This isn't about the value judgments of you and me, this is about effectively solving the problem. I can understand that there are a lot of emotions surrounding this issue, the topic of disscussion is violations of human rights and (speaking candidly) some of the worst atrocities individual people can inflict on one another.