The issue here is that morality is relative, whatever people might say or, for that matter, want. It is directly connected to the reality of the society that sets the moral norms. Our modern society is vastly different from those of Medieval Ages, and while we share a common core (mostly thanks to common cultural foundation, i.e. Greek and Latin), we do not share the same situation. Regarding the discussion, I wanted to point out a couple of things:
- Killing off wounded, whatever we may think today, was widely practiced, and even seen as honorable. There even was a weapon, misericorde, which was a knife especially made for this very purpose. The act of killing wounded was considered merciful (misericordia is "mercy" in Latin), since up to 3/4 of them would die anyway due to diseases (gangrene and such), many in pain. And I'm not talking about scrapes and broken bones, I'm talking about wounds a Medieval warrior's weapon inflicted. It was enough if one was cut (not mortally) in arm, got his skin and muscle slashed, then fell down to the ground, got the wound dirty. Gangrene was on the way, and without modern medical care it was all it took. Then again, without any context I do not know enough of the woman's intentions to decide whether she was acting out of mercy, vengeance (like, her family could have been killed), or simply wanted to loot the dying. And where did she found the wounded anyway? Were they lying on the battleground, left to slowly die from their wounds, or when they were recuperating in a hospital, or wherever. Judging from the scenery, the events seem to take place somewhat away from any larger groups of people (like an army camp), I think she was simply killing off wounded on the battleground who were left to die anyway. (Plus the charges might be simply trumped up; the guys wanted to have some fun, so they found a convenient "villain".)
- About looting and cannibalism. In the northern climate there is only a single vegetation period, a brief, couple-months long window to produce enough food that will allow to survive winter. When war wages on, even if the crops are not trampled, looted or otherwise destroyed by warring armies, there might simply not be anyone to harvest the crops (men taken into the army, captured or killed), so the crops will rot on the fields, or there even might not be anyone to plant the crops in the first place. And lack of crops would virtually mean death for people living off of them. It's not like today where we have vast surplus of food and we can easily cushion seasonal problems with what we produce elsewhere, or what we have stored within the economy. We go to shop and buy whatever we want. Most people in Middle Ages did not have the luxury. So a war often meant starvation for otherwise uninvolved populace. And quite frankly looting and cannibalism is something to expect, really, and whatever we might think of ourselves, I dare to call us all animals (because that is what we are), and biological impulse to survive is there in all of us. Unlike today, where looting is mostly due to simple greed and opportunism, when the economy that was just enough to sustain you crumbles down and lefts you with no means of survival, I deem it acceptable (if not moral) to loot and even turn to cannibalism, instead of just lying down and wait for death. Obviously cannibalism and looting does not imply killing, at least with your own hands. And even modern society can be brought to this situation, WWII is a good example of how otherwise ordinary people can act.
- As due trials of the accused go, the reality is that in the Middle Ages there were not really practiced according to any standards we now would consider just. It was only the Inquisition that began creating the idea of the legal proceedings, gathering proofs that wither confirm or deny guilt, and so on. Besides that, hearsay was often considered enough to condemn, especially if the accused was for some reason not liked, or was seen as inconvenient. That was especially true in times of war, especially since there was no real means to isolate criminals - that would require both the infrastructure (prison) and manpower which normally could not be spared. Only the rich and powerful were considered important enough (i.e. they could be ransomed or convinced to use their influence in their captor's favor) for imprisonment. The common populace - not so much. Armies (even today, for that matter) are not about morality and justice, but practicality, and dealing with someone that was presumed a criminal was quick and final. There were no trials; if one was caught, even if his guilt was only perceived as such by the invaders, he was dealt with on the spot. And since looting was something armies were doing all the time, sometimes as a necessity (getting food), most times out of greed, even as much as refusing them was considered a crime punishable by death (to make an example). And, well, the looting also included women. Anyway, it's no wonder if there wasn't any trial, and the woman was simply "caught" and "sentenced" pro forma, so that the "justice" can be served.
