1. I thought the topic of this point was just how much murder, and how many people knew of it first hand, occured in the old days, not whether people were desensitized or not. I can also interpret your last sentence several different ways so can you restate it to avoid confusion?

2. Ok I guess I should tell you why you can't win in the case of rape. No matter who it is there is 1 sole intent for rape. Reproductive instinct takes over and overrules the person's inhibitions in his mind that are set up by society. There is literally no other base reason to rape, and it doesn't matter whether the person is crazy or not. Furthermore I need to point out how laughably terrible this whole "don't listen to the victim" bullshit is. You can't even begin to comprehend how terrible the experience is for the victim, yet you with your naiveity and bullshit, idealistic, hypocritical (more on that in a sec) morals will go ahead and tell the victim to suck it up. It is extremely hypocritical because if you were to be raped, you'd be in the exact same situation and I am willing to bet all my belongings you'd want very similar form of justice. I also want to note that my sentence was NOT ambiguos, "it" was refering to the previously mentioned matter which in that case was the scenario of you getting slapped by a rape victim after justifying the rapist. Sense it wasn't ambiguous the fault can only lie with you.

3. I don't? I guess people just wanted rule of law and proper due process just for shits and giggles? That right there is the ultimate proof.

Yes... ignorance and sadism. I like how realistic, logical, people are being labeled nowadays, by someone who can't understand the antecedent of a pronoun nonetheless.

But see, now you are looking at just the consequences again and not the purpose of the action. Killing a killer in a premeditated case has a completely different intent, and therefore the action is entirely different and no hypocrisy exists.

Edit: A little off topic but, I wonder if we had different words for it (one would be murder if there was premeditation and the other one with the court order would be an entirely different word) if that would change the minds of some people. Knowing how fickle and dumb the populations are in general I wouldn't doubt it.

Let me sum up what you want me to show you proof of: That the justice system before somewhere around the 1800s was trash, and that proliferation of information in the MEDIEVAL period was pisspoor. If you really want proof for either one of those two, then you shuold really study some more history.

As for the whole rape part, you sound thoroughly ignorant, I particularly like the whole  " I'd have to get over it" part you went on there. You unequivocally proved your ignorance and idealism with that single thought right there. Go travel some, meet new people, hell maybe even get to know someone who was actually raped, then come back to having this discussion, because as it stands you are heavily out-exprienced in this area. I can guarantee you will think yourself an idiot when you look back at your statements. I know your thought process is idiotic because I had the exact same bullshit in my brain a few years ago myself, and I was a fucking idiot back then.

As to the whole "it won't erase rape," no that can never happen, however a sense of justice can go a long way to assuage the mind. Knowing he is still out there with him being free in some decades when one has been scarred for life is a pretty unfair situation.

The antecedent of the pronoun was unambigious whichever way you try to spin it. The second half follows directly from the first and is unseperable, in fact it is a continuatoin and the focus of the sentence is clearly your justification. You should drop this and admit you made a mistake than to press it further and look like an even larger fool, learn about sunk costs.

FInally, torture was gone for a bit before due process and the concept of rule of law came into practice. Therefore you can't even begin to assume how effective it would be because the entire judicial system is far less flawed than it used to be back when torture was practiced. The entire field is changed, and making a claim that states "it didn't work before" is just laughable because there is countless other variables that have changed besides the punishment. For all you know, maybe the torture was one of the ones that were actually beneficial, and a whole bunch of other variables were cause inefficiencies.