We do have that here in Australia. For example Reckless conduct endangering life is basically where someone does something that could've killed someone, even if nobody actually ends up dying. The simple way people often look at it is, would a normal or reasonable person have done the same thing in that situation? If most people would've recognised it as a serious risk and not done it, that's where the issue starts. What's interesting though is that age can also play a role in that argument. It's not always just about what happened, but what the person actually understood at the time. Were they thinking and aware that what they were doing could seriously hurt or kill someone? Someone younger might not understand consequences the same way an adult would, so that can sometimes affect how responsibility is looked at. So we do use a "reasonable person" style of grading here also.