which means that they lost control at a critical moment. History suggests that in both cases, had CAPS been available (sadly it wasn’t!) there would likely have been a better outcome if that option could have been taken.
I agree that an airplane descending under a parachute may be a better outcome than an airplane in which the pilot has lost control. Indeed, both planes are out of control, but the parachute plane is certainly descending with less energy. An element of my point is that having the CAPS available should not relieve the pilot of maintaining skills at forced landing, and if a forced landing, maybe flying the plane under control, to a known crash, if doing so will evidently prevent a risk to people on the ground. Yes, generally, a plane should be ditched rather than landed on an occupied beach, landed in the plowed field, rather than a busy road, or flown and crashed under control into a vacant area of a city, rather than drifting down out of control into a random part of the city.
For the CAPS deployments in which the pilot survived a forest or ocean landing, or the passenger saved themselves following a pilot medical event, excellent! That's what it's for! But, where a flyable airplane (albeit unpowered) drifts under a parachute into a crowded place, where a controlled landing or crash with no risk to people on the ground were possible, I think the pilot is morally obligated to control its path away from the people as the first priority.