I'm just trying to point out that at law we prosecute all sorts of crimes on the basis that they have a nexus or proximity to the ultimate harm to be avoided (e.g. blood alcohol limits and driving, possession with intent to distribute, which can be inferred from the quantity alone in some states), and it could be argued that in many cases, many of the people convicted wouldn't have actually committed the ultimate harm.

One purpose of prosecution of proximity / nexus crimes is deterrence of the behavior in society writ large for the protection of society and/or some of its members from the ultimate harm. What's a sufficient proximity or nexus is up to the state and/or people to determine.