Who is the murderer in these cases?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Third I would say that this reinforces my belief that people who go through extraordinary and extreme adversity should not be leaders in any capacity.

I agree, but there are also cases where people can improve, and their insight given by their experiences could be valuable to making political decisions - but in that case a post as invisible political advisor behind the scenes would be more appropriate, probably. Anyway, it's exactly your kind of thoughts that make it worse for the abused people! I'm not angry at you for it or anything like that because I understand it - it's a valid thought. It's very difficult indeed to tell when a person has the potential to get out of the dangerous state. So you can choose between two scenarios: giving a madman power or making a person who was fairly near a sane state ravingly mad when he wasn't. And occasionally this person who is fairly near a sane state is made ravingly mad because he wasn't trusted, and then somehow still manages to get power - that's when you get a really dangerous scenario.

To your three points I'd like to add that fourthly: society must solve the problem of being able to be harsher against harassment of different kinds through law. The alternative is no law, or anarchism. In anarchy, a hateful oppressed person could easily kill his oppressor without fear of being punished, thus eliminate the root of his fear, and wouldn't need to hurt anybody innocent to still it. Also - everybody would think twice about harassing somebody aribtrarily because nobody has any power to do so without having to fear for the rest of his life to get killed when he least expects it. And excuses and communication to avoid misunderstandings where it seems there was an attack when there wasn't one, would be important. And if against all odds some unprovoked harasser would kill somebody immediately instead of systematically harassing them, then the poor victim would die faster, suffer less, and be unable to hurt others - not an ideal situation but the harasser is still punished because he (assuming life is lived in flocks like among monkeys) weakens the numbers of his flock and thus undermines their entire survivability - something that would make it benefitial for the entire flock to kill him quickly, especially if he's planning more than one murder. The one problem with anarchy is that from anarchy, the worse state of laws and power structures, with individuals having less power and freedom, is always reborn, often initially with laws worse than those in a civilization that has lasted longer. So either anarchy must solve the problem of laws and power structures rising, or law must solve the problem of harassment not being punishable or judgeable even in the best legal systems. How?