And conversely, this is why terms like "homicide" and "manslaughter" exist, because judgements in cases of one person killing another depend on specific circumstances and intent.
It feels like you two are trying to disagree with me, but are only bolstering my argument further. In the context of murder, regardless of what the murderer's intent was, the victim is still dead ... the impact remains unchanged, and the murderer must still reckon with their actions (even if their intent is taken into account in sentencing)
Fair, we went off a tangent. So going back to the point: in this case, the consequences are grossly unproportional to the misdeed that happened.