Kant Case

I would say Kant believes in a one way road. Murder is Murder, whether one succeeds or in this case unluckily does not succeed, they both had the intention and motivation to kill. In some sense I can agree, they in my opinion are both morally equivalent. They both had the mind set and went through with the actions to kill another human being for their own personal benefits. It just happened that one was not successful due to pure luck (I guess you can call it luck). But I don't know if I agree that they should both get the same sentencing. They definitely should both get a sentencing because it was morally wrong, but should they get the same sentencing? We call it a "justice" system, with a murder trial your trying to get some kind of justice for the person who is no longer alive but with the other case that person lived they still have a life to live. So is it fair and justice to the killers to have the same sentencing? I am torn, a big part of me says yes and agrees with Kant. They both deserve the same sentencing because murder is murder whether you get away with it or not. Yet a small piece of me says, well then the killer's aren't getting their justice if they get the same sentencing because one actually did kill a human and one didn't. For the most part though I feel people should be punished according to their actions rather than the outcome.