Well, that already happened in the Case of Rittenhouse. The court already determined that there was no punishment deserved. Yet you stated that "it still feels wrong" as someone had lost his life and someone should be accountable." Thus, suggesting you disagreed with the court.
Yes, facts are facts, but the court/jury did not actually determine that there was no punishment deserved. They simply decided that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the charge that was put before the court.
They therefore found him not guilty.
Now, being "over here", I am not 100% up on the US system, so I do not know if the jury have the power to request an alternate charge be considered. If they do and did not then Yes your description would appear to be correct.
I suppose it doesn't matter what term you use. Use whichever one you are most comfortable with. Justice, Punishment or Consequences.
Again, what consequences do you think should accrue to the person who caused the loss of life. In the Rittenhouse case and the fact pattern I made up.
I think the 3 terms very much depend on whether you are personally impacted by either the real case or your hypothetical. In a modern democratic system you would like to think that punishment would only ever come after "Justice" but then what Justice is has so many defining personal considerations.
I understand that I'm not the best at asking questions, but at this point it seems you ar trying very hard not to answer the question, which is fine... There is no shame in not wanting the responsibility of making these judgments.
But I can assure you that those who don't shy away from this responsibility are the ones who concluded that Rittenhouse should suffer no more punishment/consequences or what have you for the deaths he caused, because they occurred in the act of defending himself.
Same principle would apply to the girl in my hypothetical.
Its easier when on a PC rather than on a phone to type out longer explanations but that said, when you are dealing with peoples lives, to put down so much detail as to be able to make a decision that could deny someone their liberty (or life) then there needs to be immense detail.
So in the case of Rittenhouse, I confess that I did not follow every single detail of the case, hence my general reluctance to make a definite statement on his innocence of guilt. However, in order to answer your question, but based on limited facts.. I consider that he is a "child" and therefore is still forming as a person with all that entails. I find it incomprehensible that a "child" should have access to any gun and that they would think it reasonable in any circumstance to travel any distance to go and "defend" individuals/property that they do not know.
The naivety, adolescent ignorance or whatever then appears to be shown by the fact that he is trying to "defend" the property at a dealership, yet appears to want to get into some sort of action. It is here that my basic disdain for A2 comes in, as being in possession of a semi automatic in a ever changing mad situation...and one that he knowingly put himself into and could have removed himself from, has lead to the deaths.
Much as many of the "protestors/looters/demonstrators" had weapons, in my view they simply created an environment that did not need to be there. law enforcement is there for a reason. They were not part of a "well organised militia" (IMO) and he took 3 lives. Whether it was self defence or not, he took those lives and based on the detail I consider that maybe "manslaughter" or some other offence could possibly have been more apt.
As for your hypothetical, as you say the same principle would apply, but then that would depend on the detail and she would and should in my view still be placed before the courts so that the facts can come out and she be judged by her peers. You cannot go into full detail on a hypothetical...you could but then I am sure that I would ask alot more questions than you would want to provide answers to before I came to my decision. Long long ago I did just that and was the foreman of a jury at 18 at Chester Crown Court, so I am not afraid of stating my view....as can be seen by the fact I am a Liverpool supporter on a City forum
As for consequences, that is totally down to each and every individual case. I deal with individual "stories" on a daily basis and consider it part of my job to reach "natural justice" that I look at every individual and consider their circumstances in entirety before making any decision that could seriously fuck up their lives.
Therefore you require detail and context, something that you did not provide with your hypothetical
