The surviving members of "Laughing Coffin" should've been put on trial upon awakening from SAO

Thanks to pro for accepting. Since BOP is on him I'll be spending most of my time attacking his arguments and poking holes in them, but I'll also present arguments of my own."Do you think it is possible to stop a player's heart with a bullet fired from within a video game?"Because the answer, as found in season two of SAO, for this was no, I negate.Before I start, a note about the debate at hand. Since we're assuming the events of Sword Art Online (abbreviated as SAO) happened within real life, the trial would be taking place in Japan, since this is where SAO took place. This means that we need to look at Japanese law over American law. Any argument about legal structure, laws, or legal procedures that isn't specific to Japan isn't relevant to the situation at hand.Let's start with his first argument: The Laughing Coffin (abbreviated as LC) members were responsible for the deaths.1. This is blatantly not true. The problem with his argument is that he assumes that it's the fulfilling of the conditions that places the guilt of the death. The problem with this assumption is that, were those conditions not exist, it doesn't matter how many players LC kills: they wouldn't die. Thus, the person who created the conditions for which players can die is ultimately responsible. Ironically, that person wasn't a LC member. Who'd have thought.This is also why his gun analogy fails. A gun can only kill someone if, yes, someone points the gun at someone and pulls the trigger, but you also need the bullets to actually be shot out of the gun. If I provide a gun to my three year old child, it doesn't matter what happens to that gun--it won't go off. If I provide the bullets for the gun and load the gun, then I would be establishing all the conditions necessary for my child to shoot itself. Therefore, were the conditions for forced death on player death not in place, it wouldn't matter how many of the people LC killed: they wouldn't die.2. Even if his argument is true here, it doesn't actually mean that the LC is responsible for their IRL deaths. We don't arrest people who've killed other people in a game of Call of Duty. The same principle applies. 3. Even if we did arrest people for something like this, trying them is impossible. Kirito's testiment wouldn't actually be sufficient evidence to show guilt: it would be Kirito saying "He did it" and the LC member saying "No I didn't". Furthermore, even if the LC member were to plead guilty, Japanese prosecutors are still required to submit evidence of guilt(1), evidence which just wouldn't exist since the death happened in a place where no evidence can be gathered (i.e. in SAO). Moreover, don't buy that Kirito's testimony is actual evidence, because the amount of studies that show how unreliable eye-witness testimony is is absolutely staggering(2)(3)(4).Now onto his second argument: That the LC are a danger to society.1. His cherry-picking examples are flawed. He picks out a single member of the reported thirty or so members(5) of the LC to show that all thirty of them are unstable and prone to just snapping when in reality. His generlisation fails in this scenario. 2. Turn this argument against him. His own words show that "[Kouichi] killed people within SAO and thus he became twisted to the point where he was willing to kill people in real life." This means that, if killing makes them have the potential to snap, we would be trying literally every main protagonist since they participated in the raid on the LC which resulted in the deaths of both Crusaders and LC members(5). This is even more true for Kirito, who almost kills Sugou at the end of the ALO story arc(6). If his measure punishes good guys, it's clearly flawed.Now onto his third argument: Deterrence1. There's literally zero warrant for why this would deter people from killing players in game.2. This wouldn't deter anyone. Criminals don't think they'll ever be caught if they commit a crime, otherwise they wouldn't do the crime(7). Other criminals weigh the risks and decide they can probably get away with it, which again shows that deterrence doesn't really work for criminals. 3. The internal logic behind this argument contradicts his first argument. Why do we need to deter criminals from killing players in games again? Because someone might make a game where people can die playing it again. This places the responsibilities for the deaths on the creator, rather than the players who are killing in the game. With his arguments refuted, I will present my own counter-arguments.Argument One: Impracticality/Infeasability:There's multiple levels in which trying criminal video game players for a crime they commit in game isn't feasable. First, refer back to the japanese law argument that I made where, even if the criminal pleas guilty, they still have to provide evidence showing guilt. Such evidence doesn't exist within the real world and such evidence would be impossible to retrieve from within the game. It would be impossible to actually try the LC members since there wouldn't be any evidence to try them with.Secondly, refer back to the argument I made that shows the number of innocent players that would be caught up in the net of Pro's plan simply because they were forced to kill in self-defense. We'd be doing more harm than good. Third, there's zero brightline for how we would even try something like this. Murder? Manslaughter? There's no explanation given by Pro as to how this would actually go down, and without it it's dubious whether or not such a measure would even work. Argument Two: An Alternative:The argument here is simple: let's not try the members of the LC, but rather rehabilitate them. They were forced to stay within a virtual reality for years and some pretty awful things happened over the course of those years. Instead of punishing them for being some of the unfortunate people to be caught up in such a whirlwind and degeneration of events, we should be focusing our efforts on reforming them into normal members of society. Not only can teenagers be rehabilitated(8) (which is the primary age group within the game), but rehabilitation has been shown to work wonders for reducing recidivism rates and saving money on prison costs overall(9) (if you're arresting less people, that's less money you have to pay to maintain the prisons). It's simply the better option.Sources:(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) - http://www.scientificamerican.com...(3) - http://www.simplypsychology.org...(4) - http://people.howstuffworks.com...(5) - http://swordartonline.wikia.com...(6) - http://swordartonline.wikia.com...;(7) - https://books.google.com...'t%20think%20they'll%20be%20caught%20if%20they%20commit%20a%20crime&f=false(8) - http://www.thedailybeast.com...(9) - http://www.nytimes.com...;