You misunderstand me. I was not wondering - it is a fact that they would feel the same regardless of what I did. Call what I am doing what you will, but I see little difference between deciding that you have a right to put a man on the stand for murder by a collection of evidence and allowing him to run through an ineffective justice system to offend again, and simply collecting the evidence until there is enough to prove guilt beyond doubt and preventing him from ever hurting anyone else. Both assume that others have the right to pass judgement on their fellow man. Both assume that punishment should be dealt for acts that go beyond the pale of human morality. One is simply effective at preventing future crimes where the other is not.