Ok, if your analogy is God as the legal system, then.. it breaks down too quickly to be useful, I think. Because "guilt" in this is a matter of our heart, which only God knows, which God sees in His manner, which only God knows again.
So, it may be that the drunk in the corner is a Saint or an angel for all we know. Therefore I have to put upfront a huge caveat that God as judge metting punishment for our sins on the basis of a externally objectively definable legal code... I have problems with that model.
Quickly I think we would be at the mercy of the Court.
However we are discussing personal choice and freedom, sin and punishment here, so "Do what thou wilt and ask for mercy" isn't much of a reply.
I can however discuss levels of punishment and responsibility for our mistakes - our wrong choices. And I think this will mirror enough of your reply to make a reply.
Without mens rea, we are, on the face of it, not guilty. Mens rea ex ante I mean. We can't be responsible of a wrong choice we did not know was wrong. However, this should result in mens rea ex post. In a healthy person, conscience develops also from experience. It could be as little as "Why do I keep making choices I regret?"
The Church, I believe, has a good leading on this. If we get spiffed and everytime we do, we continue on to drunk and usually when we're drunk we get angry and when we get angry we fight...
Then, knowing this, getting spiffed is, yes, an equivalent mistake or the point we know now we must exercise free choice. We may even, upon examination, see that we are angry to begin with and get drunk in order to be able to do what we won't let ourselves do sober.
In the analogy, the punishment for our sins is separation from God. We may, early on, not recognize God, but we experience the separation still. The dynamic of doing what we think we want vs. what we think we should reveals our conscience. If we get healthier the choice between these two decreases - this I believe is metanoia. Our "wants" change.
To help us develop this health is a large part of the Church's role.
The punishment we take upon ourselves is directly related to how much we knowingly separate ourselves from God, and our conscience is our initial and base point for "judging" this.
Back to your analogy of responsibility for bound choices. In another sense we are responsible - not in the sense of being guilty for choosing something we could not choose, but being responsible for what we choose in all cases.
Further, if we harm someone, even unintentionally, this guilt is ours, we cannot simply say "I didn't know any better." and go on. Neither can we say, "it was God's will." With rare exceptions we're responsible for the results of our choices and actions.
If harm results, have to examine why, how we could have prevented it if possible, and we have to make amends for the results of our actions regardless. So, in your analogy, this would vary with the physical (and emotional and spiritual) harm our choices resulted in. This is closer to the legal scale in your analogy.
This harm and guilt is separate, but not completely, from the harm we do to ourselves. It is another part of healthy growth to see that everything we do affects others. A conscience cannot develop without love. Jesus's commandments are the key to it all.
I do hope I've understood your reply and haven't gone off sideways forever.
Then we have the notion which I believe that all "justice" (or nearly all )was civil, personal almost. If I "have shot mine arrow o'er the house// And hurt my brother", I owe somebody something. There was a law in Iceland, I just read: There shall be no such thing as an accident. In other words, I hurt somebody; I pay; that's that. Mens, schmens!
As the Calvinists in the conversation will eagerly tell you, I am not a Calvinist. But I think that in your thoughtful post and my clunky efforts what we're achieving is to say that is is NOT totally off the wall for someone to be doomed to sin and yet justly punished for his sin.
I rode shotgun on an extradition from Brooklyn to Charlottesville. The young man we picked up was charming and pleasant. And doomed. He had no clue. It was against his sense of honor to be dissed by Corrections Officers, so when his tender honor was offended he retaliated. Consequently he spent right much time in the hole at Rikers. One of our deputies had been a CO so he knew this particular guy and confirmed my impression that he would certainly do all his time, because, well, honor demanded it.
And it was important to him that I understand that he only boosted stuff from stores. He didn't burgle or rob individuals.
It was as if the categories of thought that are requisite for life outside the pokey were just not part of his armamentarium. He was doomed. I hated it, but I sure don't want him on the outside!
And yet, sometimes, too rarely, I pray for him. Such a nice guy, and such a huge, self-destructive jerk.