aterpster;
Re, "It was similar to the crash at issue that the "mistake level" rose to gross negligence." [referencing Lexington in re Mangalore]
Yes. Continuing an highly unstable approach after forceful, verbal interventions by one's crew member(s) does not belong to the category of "an honest mistake".
And all else being equal, the time for bombastic personalities over-ruling CRM principles is over and the matter, difficult though it may be, begs to be addressed. Fortunately there are extremely few examples of such unprofessional behaviour with which to come to terms in some form (criminal prosecution?) or another.
I don't wish to re-argue views on criminal prosecutions and aircrews involved in accidents because I know you know the arguments. However, while I do acknowledge a long (by centuries) history of English tort law and the more serious criminal jurisprudence, the circumstances in aviation are materially different, with the notion of "the greater good" lurking in the background, and the need to "find out to prevent".
We know that in extremely rare cases, accidents occur to perfectly serviceable airplanes in which crew behaviour and actions are nothing short of gross negligence.
Aviation safety is advanced by knowing and understanding accidents, yet criminal prosecution opposes such knowing by enframing the dialogue such that the law, and not human factors is the arbiter of understanding and final outcomes.
I don't disagree with your views on this captain and it is difficult to keep emotion out of it when such outlying behaviours are involved. The accident brings to mind the Garuda over-run accident in 2007 at Yogyakarta, and a couple of others.
But the backdrop to any such views and emotions is Human Factors. The quote above from your post defines the fork in the road in this ongoing argument: At what point does an accident cross over and move from the need to understand, to the need to merely prosecute? So far as society is concerned, it is not an open-shut question.
I don't know the answer of course and it wouldn't matter if I did anyway, because such judgements are in the end a societal matter and not merely a "DGCA", (or NTSB or...?) matter. It is a credit to the existing system that such seemingly-negligent causes are so rare. But we in Canada have already "gone there" and neither the aviation system nor the courts have answered the question. Despite the law against it, (TSB Act), CVRs have been played in open court.
The point is made more stark by asking, for example, questions about the captain's physical health, and considering just the possibility of, say brain disease, (cancer/stroke/latent epilepsy) which had not manifested itself in previous medicals etc. As well-written as it is, the DGCA Report does not discuss this and, likely correctly, cites sleep inertia etc.
It is very difficult to condemn a fellow airman, but it is equally difficult to accept unprofessional standards when obvious answers (go-around) are at hand and especially when fatalities are involved.
Where do we cast our nets?