I'm not a lawyer but it's not as if the defense can drag things out indefinitely so at some point there's a judge forcing a case to trial, right? So it's really a matter of degree. Under our laws the defense in this case has every right to mount a case that considers things like intent, premeditation, whether a murder was the product of another crime, etc. I simply don't think that's how it should be.

There shouldn't be degrees of murder. If a person is dead because of your intentional actions that could reasonably be expected to cause death, it's murder, period, not manslaughter, second degree murder, etc. Now I admit that would strike many people as unfair and my own instinct is to agree. "But he didn't mean to kill him, just rough him up. Who knew he had a heart condition?" However, it's much closer to how non-western societies view things and I've come to believe that's a better view.

That's only if you think it's appropriate to build a defense case on mitigating factors and all that other stuff common in western legal and moral arguments. Personally, I think that's irrelevant. Either you committed the crime or you didn't. It doesn't even matter if it was premeditated, a crime of passion or an unintentional yet inevitable outcome of reckless behavior. That's why I also think the punishment for attempted murder and murder should be the same. Why should you get a lower sentence for shooting someone just because you missed a major artery? Why should a drunk driver who hits a telephone pole get a lighter sentence than one who hits a person?