So whether ross killed or distributed the drugs, he was guilty of X.
The genius of the conspiracy charge is the jury can be convinced of drug distribution but not the murder. And the judge could be convinced it was murder and not distribution. But they both fall under "bad stuff" so the judge isn't even wrong when they sentence him for "bad stuff" as murder is "bad stuff."
The fact that the elements of bad stuff for the judge is different than elements of bad stuff for the jury is almost an after thought. And hey, you can't say he didn't do bad stuff.
Taken this to the extreme, I wonder if someday they will have a crime that is just called "felony." The jury just has to be convinced you smoked a left handed cigarette, at which point obviously you're guilty of "felony." Then the judge can promptly forget about the cigarette and decide on preponderance of the evidence just what elemenst of "felony" you comitted and sentence that based on what she thinks is more likely than not.
If you're convicted of crime X, you should be sentenced base on crime X, not on what other things everyone believes you actually did, but for which sufficient evidence can't be found to convict.
You seem to be advocating for a legal system where it's fine to punish people for things they haven't actually been convicted of doing. Regardless of what we may think of Al Capone, or "know" that he did, I think I would much rather let an Al-Capone-type off with the comparatively light sentence of a tax-dodger, than risk a harsh sentence for someone who didn't do the unproven things that people nevertheless "know" they did. Because of course that will happen.