"Everyone" also "knows" that phone calls can be listened in to. "Everyone" "knows" that USPS packages could be physically opened if someone has both access and intent. "Everyone" "knows" that their homes could be broken into regardless of any locks by, for example, breaking a window. Does this mean that any of these actions should be legal without a proper warrant. WTF kind of ridiculous argument is this?
The large range is exactly due to the fact that the point of "divergence" is essentially arbitrary, especially considering nobody was there to observe. The concept of individual species itself is arbitrary, and many exceptions exist to the "able to reproduce and produce fertile offspring" rule. Its nothing more than a useful baseline that aids in communication, sorta like lewis structures in chemistry
Who said he shouldn't be punished? Of course he should be punished, and he will be. Restitution, however, is a financial payment from the criminal to the victim to compensate them for harm caused them during the commission of a crime. Nobody was actually harmed, therefore nobody is entitled to restitution.
Well since the "hitman" was an undercover agent, and the target was not actually tortured and killed, I'll repeat myself. Who was actually, personally harmed as a direct result of his actions?