A person can be held criminally responsible if the only difference between the actual and desired outcomes involves what?

The concept of criminal responsibility hinges on the idea that an individual can be held accountable for their actions when the actual outcome differs from their desired outcome primarily in terms of who or what was affected. In this case, if a person intended to cause harm to a specific victim or property but ended up affecting a different person or piece of property instead, they can still be charged with the intended crime.

This principle recognizes that the intent behind the action is crucial; the perpetrator's mens rea (criminal intent) is still present even if the outcome differs in the victim or property involved. For example, if someone aims to harm one individual but accidentally harms another, the original intent to commit the crime remains, thereby establishing criminal responsibility regardless of the change in victim or target.

Other answers focus on aspects like methods of crime or the severity of the crime, which do not adequately capture the essence of intent and outcome regarding responsibility. Thus, the outcome being simply a different person or property affected solidifies the accountability of the perpetrator under the law.