Immorality suggests licentious behaviour which is not in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice. In short - no.
"Who is the person who conducts the show?"
Yes, a jury decides if a person is guilty or not guilty.
Of or pertaining to a profession, or calling; conforming to the rules or standards of a profession; following a profession; as, professional knowledge; professional conduct., Engaged in by professionals; as, a professional race; -- opposed to amateur., A person who prosecutes anything professionally, or for a livelihood, and not in the character of an amateur; a professional worker.
the person found guilty
Said person would be an "accessory before the fact" and would be guilty of what ever the perpetrator is guilty of
Of or pertaining to a profession, or calling; conforming to the rules or standards of a profession; following a profession; as, professional knowledge; professional conduct., Engaged in by professionals; as, a professional race; -- opposed to amateur., A person who prosecutes anything professionally, or for a livelihood, and not in the character of an amateur; a professional worker.
For a person to be guilty, someone has to prove with supportive reasons that the person did something wrong.
The answer to that depends on the person you're asking. I, for one, think it's immoral. Killing someone is never the right answer. After all, maybe the person actually was innocent.
Under our law, a person is guilty of Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree when, being eighteen years (18) old or more, he or she engages in Select applicable alternative(s): oral sexual conduct [or] anal sexual conduct with another person less than fifteen (15) years old.
A person is never found innocent. A person is found guilty or not guilty at the verdict phase of a criminal trial.
Yes they are Guilty