Culpability doesn't reveal the whole incentive structure. Suppose person A 'tries to kill' person B and fails but a situation arises where they have another ch

Culpability doesn't reveal the whole incentive structure. Suppose person A 'tries to kill' person B and fails but a situation arises where they have another chance to kill you but don't seize the opportunity. To prove a moral equivalence between 'murder' and 'attempted murder' the law should have to prove that person A tried to kill person B and failed, and then also prove that they would've repeated their attempts until success if they hadn't been stopped by law enforcement ... If I try to murder you, fail, and then stop trying to murder you, I've inherently done something 'less' than if I had succeeded in murdering you. This would also avoid creating a legal incentive for Person B to take extra action to complete a failed murder attempt which they might otherwise not take. If the punishments for murder and attempted murder are equivalent, then a criminal should never stop until the victim is dead once reaching the point of 'attempting' murder -- the not-dead person can testify against them making it (in general) far easier for the law to successfully convict than it would be if the victim had died ...