You raise a valid point about the murderous individual who botches the crime but I would argue that the theft of $20 is significantly different than the theft of $200,000. Both are thefts but one is likely to be far more damaging than the other. It might be like comparing someone who tries to stab another with a butter knife as compared to someone who uses a machete.

Thanks for your comment and interest!

My observation is that we don’t all agree on the purpose of criminal justice system. Some think it’s retribution; some rehabilitation; some deterrence or prevention.

Since rehabilitation rarely works for serious offenders, until we find more reliable techniques, we should hold that as an ideal but not one within reach.

That leaves deterrence or vengeance. If as a society we could agree on one, we’d be more clear on what sentences are appropriate.

One thing to note: our system currently penalizes success and rewards ineptitude. A thief who steals $20 is convicted of petty theft and gets a shorter sentence than the one who steals $200,000–despite that both have the same moral failing, differing only in degree. Someone who attempts murder but fails gets off more lightly than one who succeeds–again, both have identical intent and similar moral failing. In essence, if you’re too stupid to steal a worthwhile total, or too clumsy to really kill the person of your intent, the system thinks you’re less of a menace.

Not logical, in my view.