I don't have a strong position on this but I am interested in some opinions on whether it makes more sense for the punishment to be commensurate with the actual effects or the potential effects?
eg. If you punch someone in an altercation, they might fall and hit their head and die - and people have been jailed for doing so - but if the same punch happens to not cause a fall, it will likely result in minimal bruising and perhaps a concussion that will heal in a few weeks.
Do these crimes deserve the same sentence or does outcome matter?
I think this usually falls under two considerations - intention and "careless as to consequences"
If you shoot at me with intention to kill, and miss, attempted murder almost always carries the same weight as murder so outcome does not matter.
If you punch me in the face on top of a cliff, and I stumbke and fall to my death, your intention may only have been tissue damage, but you were careless as to (reasonable potential) consequences.
And yes the falling and hitting ones head is iirc seen as a reasonably predictable consequence.
eg. If you punch someone in an altercation, they might fall and hit their head and die - and people have been jailed for doing so - but if the same punch happens to not cause a fall, it will likely result in minimal bruising and perhaps a concussion that will heal in a few weeks.
Do these crimes deserve the same sentence or does outcome matter?