I've never understood why this is segmented by outcome instead of intention for these kinds of cases.

If you shoot someone in the head you should be tried for murder. It's what you intended to commit.

You assumed the risk of causing more harm than you wanted the very moment you pulled the trigger.

Did you pull the trigger by accident? You assumed the risk the moment you decided to cock the gun.

Did you cock the gun by accident? You assumed the risk the moment you decided to engage.

All that said, I don't believe in punitive justice. For me, justice should be reparative.

It's great if he has recovered and been pardoned by the victim.

I also don't think isolating someone as much is good either.

However, I can understand how you might want to isolate someone who does such wicked action. It's a shame nothing else was done during incarceration, though.

Thankfully death penalty wasn't applied. We can't trust the state to decide who lives or dies.

Not only are there too many victims of wrongful convictions, but the cost of a single miscarriage of justice is unbearable.

I'd like to note because you're mentioning them and assumptions could be made about my position by my earlier comment, IMO:

- trying a minor as an adult is ridiculous - isolation is torture - the death penalty is unethical and ineffective

Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and accidental manslaughter (assuming the person died from the headshot, otherwise just aggravated assault with a deadly weapon)

That would be a risk you're taking in that case.

I agree it’s a risk. But I think saying it was the _intent_ to shoot them in the head (as per your first comment) is very difficult to argue. Someone could have intended to shoot them in the shoulder. I’m being devils advocate here. If you want to avoid arguing about intent, then you can just punish based on outcome. The argument could be turned. I could intend to shoot you in the head, but miss and hit your shoulder. The intent was to kill you, the outcome was you didn’t die. What now?