Is anyone truly innocent?

In the novel Frankenstein in Baghdad, Hadi the junk-dealer sews together a corpse that becomes animated by the soul of a hotel guard killed in an explosion. The Whatsitsname roams the streets of Baghdad, taking revenge on those responsible for the deaths of the various sources of his hodge-podge of body parts. However, as he fulfills his revenge and the parts keep falling off of him, he finds himself resorting to killing not just criminals, but “innocents” as well to replace his limbs. The Whatsitsname attempts to justify those actions, the novel reading, “There are no innocents who are completely innocent, and no criminals who are completely criminal … every criminal he had killed was also a victim.” (PAGEEEE) At one point, he also states that the supposed innocents  may have committed criminal deeds in the past or will do so in the future, therefore making it alright. In this case, his rampage of death would never end. One then has to question, did any of his victims deserve death simply so the Whatsitsname could obtain a new eye or a new hand? I agree with the idea that no one is completely innocent or criminal; criminals could repent  and anyone has the potential to commit crimes. However, it makes even less sense to rationalize the creature’s killings under these guidelines rather than looking at the simple concrete categories of either innocent or criminal. The Whatsitsname starts out solely killing murderers responsible for the parts on him – clearly criminal in nature- but once he deviated from his revenge killings it’s hard to know where to draw the line. No one in the world is truly innocent of all crime or sins and at that point, considering the moral dilemma over his victims, the Whatsitsname should have ended his mission. In the end, he became just as cold-blooded of a murder as his previous victims, over a misplaced sense of preventing future crimes.