Reading this topic reminds me of the moronic facebook posts made by some girls who thought the Boston Bomber brothers were innocent because one of them was cute. Yes, that was a thing. Justice is blind for a good reason.
I find Shinichi and Ran idealistic when it comes to their principles about murder. One way to look at ethics is to measure how much someone values sticking to good principles versus good outcomes. A principle-driven person would not support bad means even if it led to a very good end, while an outcome-driven person would be upset when good principles prevented good ends. Shinichi and Ran are both very principled, and that works well in places like Japan which is attentive to crime.
It is hard to be principled in places that are unfair. For instance, there have been lots of cases in India where repeat rapists and killers who kept getting away because of connections or threats were then killed by mobs. (Akku Yadav was a famous one.) Is it worth standing by your principle not to murder when a rapist will keep attacking the women and children in your community with no hope of justice? That's the sort of decisions some people have to face. Even though I live in a nice country, I can recognize adherence to principles is a luxury rather than universal law that will work well for everyone. That's why I think that Shinichi and Ran are idealistic - they are inexperienced when it comes to struggles others have to face in unfair places.
Mostly I hate it when Gosho tries to say one side of the ethics measure I mentioned above is the right one. There was a moment of really strong values dissonance in the fandom when Sera tried to get that hostage taker shot in Mouri agency hostage case but Ran stopped her because she didn't want him to be killed. Gosho made it seem like Sera was worse than Ran for trying to put a good outcome ahead of good principles. I don't like that sort of simplistic thinking about ethics. Both sides have their merits.