One could also argue that the punishment should be worse, if you kill someone you claim to love more than others.
We have precedent for holding people to higher levels of responsibility for their actions, for example, while armed. What might be simple assault becomes ‘simple assault, while armed’ - whether the gun is touched or not - and that is far, far more serious a charge than otherwise.
Cases where things ‘escalate out of control’ - well, that means you have two willing participants there, they are both guilty for escalating things. They person who kills the other gets no break because “Well I loved him”.
We already recognizethe difference between 1st degree (intentional homicide/murder) and 2nd degree (unintentional homicide/murder). Or even to a lesser case, manslaughter. There may be other even more accidental death types of charges (death by motor vehicle, etc). Then of course, justifiable homicide.
Perhaps if such a killing was premeditated, that would be true. But, I think the law should draw a bold distinction between people who set out to murder someone - a real predator, versus someone who gets into either a domestic squabble or bar room fight and kills someone during the skirmish.
This particular case is somewhere in the middle ground. It seems that there may have been a domestic squabble, and the killer may have returned some time later to finish what he started. But, there's some problem with the forensic evidence and it's possible, perhaps even likely that's not what happened. Plus, the aggravating factors cited at trial, aren't very compelling, as is pointed out in the article. I just don't see this particular case as a good candidate for the death penalty.