I think my points have been sideswiped under a blanket assertion that it should be "vengeance first".

1) When in fact there were judicial proceedings and findings.
2) When the insistence of compassion toward the convicted seems to trump compassion toward the relatives of the victims (victims themselves), and their feelings are linked to vengeance and therefore denigraed.
3) The courts are instituted as a solution to the vengeance issue. When the courts don't do their job, or are perceived not to be doing their job, the vengeance issue comes right back.
4) A valid point was made that jihadis would be out front at being publicized as such, but this is not necessarily the case. State sponsored terrorism might be conducted with a desire to be deniable.

In brief, there are basic assumptions rampant through this thread, that vengeance is de facto wrong, that the convicted person was wrongfully convicted, that the hurt feelings of the relatives of the victim are less important than the feelings of the relatives of the convicted.

On the other hand, this thread has been worthwhile to me, most of those disagreeing with me have made me think, which is no small achievement.