comment: >
  
  So, in terms of the OP, you're not really providing any argument, you're just saying no. Why do you think that, why should the others change their view to yours?
  On a slightly different thread; what is the purpose of the consequence for you? I mean, what is the punishment intended to do exactly?
context: Attempted murder charges are lighter so that even if someone starts a murder, they always have an incentive to not finish the murder. It's not great, but it theoritically reduces harm to victims. >
  
  Wouldn't that just mean that if you followed through with the attempt and failed you'd get a different punishment than if you changed your mind part way through? >
  
  No, because "changing your mind partway through" is also a failed attempt at murder. >
  
  
  Scenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.
  Scenario B: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim is critically injured or is killed in the accident.
  In each scenario, the same exact crime or act is committed yet the punishment for each scenario will differ greatly depending on the outcome or result.
  The offender in scenario A likely receives probation and is required to complete community service hours, among other things.
  The offender in scenario B likely spends over a decade in prison. 
  
  The wider population tends to think in consequentialist terms, which is why we have phrases like "victimless crime". The problem is that if society were to always punish drunk driving with a decade in prison, regardless of the outcome, it would be widely perceived as being disproportionate if there were only minor injuries or no victim at all, and it would make the justice system seem indifferent and unnecessarily cruel.
  One could say that by driving under the influence, drivers freely decide to take part in a "lottery" with potential consequences (severe punishment) that they would receive IF they got into severe enough accidents. Through this lottery, many drivers are lucky enough to get away scot-free (or with minor punishments for DUI only), while some will be punished for killing/injuring someone. That's the risk they took. They could have also chosen to not get drunk, or to get a taxi.
  It's in the same sense that when a heavy smoker gets lung cancer we tend to blame their smoking habits, even though there are also many examples of people who smoked the same number (or more) of cigarettes throughout their lives and never get any lung cancer, and there are lifelong non-smokers who get lung cancer. >
  
  This point is valuable.
  It's worth considering why laws exist. There's nothing inherently immoral about drunk driving, for example. The prohibitions exist because of the harm that impaired driving can cause, so it follows that the response to a crime should match the harm caused, not an arbitrary number. >
  
  Thanks. For some reason, it seems quite common for OPs in CMV to only be interested in engaging with those objections that they already anticipated. >
  
  When I'm about to have a difficult discussion with someone, I play and replay the imagined conversation in my head ad nauseum. When the conversation inevitably fails to play out according to my plan, it can be hard to adjust. It shouldn't be, but it is.
  I suspect OPs get overwhelmed, especially when it's their first time. >
  
  I think you are actually saying criminals should be punished for the act they do irrespective of outcome. As others have pointed out, outcomes are part of what changes the “crime charged” as you put it. 
  In that case, you would charge/punish a person who gets drunk, drives, and speeds the same as you would
  Someone who gets drunk, drives, crashes into a mini van and kills a family of four.  The “act” the defendant did was drive drunk in both situations.  
  That would be a system I’d not advocate for. But if you think that’s justice, cool.  The “logic” is that the criminal justice system doesn’t just focus on the defendant. It looks at the victim and society as a whole. >
  
  OP is confusing me honestly… in some comments he appears to be arguing for what we currently have, because he just says “the actions were different, therefore different crimes”… without seeming to realise that the different actions lead to different results.
  Which is part of what we look for in a crime. >
  
  Take your example of drunk driving. If we make the punishments equal, you would either  1) give community service and probation to those who kill people with their cars, 2) imprison people for a decade for the first offense of drunk driving even when no harm was caused, or 3) create some suboptimal solution like 2 years in prison for everyone.
  1) is bad because light consequences would just encourage more people to drive drunk and kill more people. I don't think this needs anymore explanation.
  2) is bad because you are giving harsh punishment to people who actually didn't harm anyone. If you disagree with this, I think you need to clarify your beliefs about the purpose of punishment.
  3) is suboptimal because you are giving relatively lighter sentences to people who did the most harm and heavier sentences to people who did no harm. >
  
  
  2) is bad because you are giving harsh punishment to people who actually didn't harm anyone. If you disagree with this, I think you need to clarify your beliefs about the purpose of punishment.
  
  You're literally just saying that people deserve punishment for getting unlucky (or the converse, people deserving less punishment for getting lucky). How does this seem like a sensible system? >
  
  Context matters. Driving drunk down town is worse than driving drunk on sparsely populated farm roads. Not condoning either, but one clearly has a higher probability of harm than the other. That said, I'm not against having the same sentencing for the same scenario, but then again if someone dies in one scenario and not the other, then the scenarios are different and may require different sentencing. >
  
  Yes, nobody is disputing that. I, and OP, are disputing that people deserve different sentences strictly on the basis of luck. Driving drunk in different places isn't just luck. >
  
  Are you serious? In one case one person dies, in the other no one does. If it's merely luck or not it's totally irrelevant: either someone dies or not. You can't possibly have the same punishment for causing death or not causing death. You pay a price based on the consequences caused by your actions. If your (irresponsible) actions cause no harm at all, then you shouldn't be punished the same way as if they did