Atheism can’t have an ultimate crime. There is no final arbiter of who deserves what. Its all just Nietzsche on steroids. Out of the chaos, you impose your own order. If you win, or if you lose, there is no deserving. There is only a temporary hanging on to temporary goals, and goals that have no accessible meaning. They just are.
So if Jeff Dahmer likes to put people in his freezer, we only say he’s wrong because we don’t personally benefit from having people like him in the neighborhood. But to “deserve” something is to infer an arbiter, and there is none, according to atheism.
It’s one of the reasons I’m no longer an atheist. I know there is such a thing as “deserve.” It stands there on the otherwise unblemished surface of a supposedly pure rationality and demands an accounting. We base nearly everything on it, yet every explanation of it that omits the idea of the Ultimate Arbiter can be shown to be self-contradictory. It is maddening. Or else perhaps instructive.
True, as while atheists can be relatively moral people, there is not appeal to a supreme transcendent authority, which, even allowing for some interpretation, sets the standard for morality, and even valid reasoning.