This may sound like a somewhat silly question but...

... at the beginning of the film in that lecture, when after claiming that he finds death penalty "cruel", "capricious" etc and having some law members disagree, how come...

Not one of those individuals (although the closest was that man who said "I wish you described the victims instead" and that "How would you feel if your family was on the victim side" etc) ever actually stood up and said something to the effect of...

Those crooks are irredeemable BAD GUYS and that the system in general is made of us the good guys or...

Do most people in law and otherwise outright KNOW for instance that life and in the system, its NOT THAT SIMPLE?

Or even argue and shout "No Mr Armstrong, the system overall is NOT cruel, capricious etc"...

Maybe even bring up action movies and fairy-tales where villains often get defeated in violent defence and how most people CELEBRATE such endings and it is mostly SEEN as the RIGHT way to go.

Also, and this is a general observation. How come if someone like a man whose family member was killed or brutally attacked kills the right person out of vengeance, even if LAW disagrees, he is seen in many CIVILIZED people's eyes as someone who is a hero and did the right thing, but when the legal system punishes even the GUILTY man as such with death penalty, the system is still spoken of in strong NEGATIVE terms as "cruel" etc like - where on either side is it about good defeating evil in general, or are there many complexities and dark shades in the legal system overall (both well known and not so known), and in death penalty MORE SO, that sadly and inconveniently don't make it black and white simple so?