Apologies if this has been discussed to death, but I ran a few searches and couldn't find a thread on this particular subject, so here goes. Was anyone else seriously put off by the ethics of Starfleet's treatment of Kahn (i.e., re-freezing him)? I think we can all/most of us agree that, regardless of how we may feel about capital punishment in today's world, in which child starvation still exists, the future Starfleet/UFP does not execute prisoners, ever. If STID had ended with Khan biting it via prison yard phaser rifle firing squad, I'm sure the fan outcry would even have exceeded that of Man of Steel's. So here's the question: how is freezing a prisoner (and presumably in so doing halting brain functions) and locking him up in a storage facility any more humane than execution? Kirk promised Khan he would stand trial. Did he? I can't imagine him consenting to be frozen again - why would he, as opposed to being locked up but allowed to read and write, a la Arik Soong? I could imagine him requesting execution rather than spending the rest of his life locked up, but that doesn't mean the Starfleet/UFP authorities would grant it. And here's the real kicker: in a movie with several dubious TWOK callbacks, TPTB ignored a perfectly good and appropriate callback ending solution: grant Khan his cherished dream of waking up all his friends, but dump them all on an uninhabited M-class planet - albeit with regular satellite surveillance this time, per a word to the wise from Spock Prime. To be honest, simply locking Khan him up like Arik Soong makes the most sense to me, but I'd also have been entirely happy with them ripping off/paying homage to "Space Seed" in the above manner. As for the ending we got, in seems to me like nothing more than another Raiders shout-out, at the expense of all notion of ethics and judicial propriety. What says the BBS Fleet?