I guess in general you have the pull between the Great Man theory of history and what might be called the Marxist theory of history. Did a bad event happen because a particular person was in a specific position of power at an exact time, or were forces of history driving SOMEONE to do this, and the individual who did it was the one most likely to, but absent him, someone else would be the one most likely to?
I think the Marxist theory of history is something else... What you describe of historical forces is the theory that Marx tried to amend with his "dialectical materialism".
As far as I know there are at least three historical theories:
1) Great Man Theory: The random acts of very specific individuals can and do alter history to a great extent. If these individuals did not exist, history would have stalled or even regressed, because no one else could do the same.
2) Historical Determinism Theory (I'm not sure what the real name is): In reality, the Great Man is just a reflection of pre-existing cultural, political, and social trends in society. Far from being an actor of change, the Great Man is actually the mere spokesman for change. As a consequence of this, even if you take out the Big Man (by shooting Washington at Bunker Hill for example), the end result will be the same, because due to "forces of history" someone else will take Washington's place and lead the change of anyway.
3) Marx's dialectical materialism: This seeks to amend the two previous theories by stating that, ultimately, the decisive factor of historical change is the "relations of production", the "material conditions", and the constant opposition between capitalists and proletarians. As well as affirming that none of the cultural, political and social factors (not of course the great Man, unless said Great Man is called Karl Marx) matter at all, since ultimately it all comes down to economics.
"It's the economy, stupid" to put it in contemporary terms.
I personally believe that theory 3 is the one that is doing the most damage to historiographical analysis because it results in generations of historians determined to deny any weight and relevance to all factors that are not strictly economic, as well as to be horribly aggressive against anyone. who does not share his obsession with the economy.
But regarding my original question, I think this would fit more into the other big question in history: is it legitimate to punish someone for something they haven't done yet?
Judging by the number of TLs and scenarios where this type of punitive mentality is applied, it seems that many people believe that the answer is a resounding "Yes, without the slightest doubt, punishing someone for something they have not done is nothing but justice. ". What seems absurd to me is that many of these people then claim to be in favor of the rehabilitation and reintegration of other WTF criminals.
Then there's the issue that killing someone before he commits a crime probably won't prevent someone from stepping up to fill the void...