This distinction is not something I'd heard of before, so thanks for the explanation. It seems to me that I fundamentally disagree with this idea of a conduct

This distinction is not something I'd heard of before, so thanks for the explanation. It seems to me that I fundamentally disagree with this idea of a conduct crime. Prosecutors should be expected to prove the harm that was caused by the actions for which a person is having criminal charges pressed against them. (I don't know of anything like this in American law; per my understanding, if you do the thing that's written down as not to do, you did bad.) If it's expected that it will be obvious what the harm is, then it can be expected that proving it (or convincing a judge of it) will be easy. Anyway, maybe I'll be able to come up with a counter example but I'm coming up blank currently.