+2

It is far from sounding common sense justice to see that the whole life of a victim who was for example shot to death to be worth only a sentencing of 20 years (and I am probably at the high end of the scale for second degree murder sentencing here), let alone the probability of a parole release, of the shooter's life just because he did not Premeditated  the murder, as long as the shooter did his action by choice and with recognition to its potential consequence. Yesterday, I tried to see what arguments are there in support of such distinction between punishments for Premeditated and non-Premeditated intentional (in the sense described above) killing but I did not find anything worthy of special mention or encouraging for more research in that regard. I started to question how widespread this system which the normal senses seems to contradict could be. So I searched for that in the United Kingdom and guess what? It appears that according to the "English Law" they don't have second degree murder there. Instead, according to THIS they have only murder and manslaughter there and there is nothing in the law preventing killing like the one I described above from getting the same sentencing with or without Premeditation. That fits much better with basic sense of justice for actions that are seen as clearly intentional in the normal sense. The addition of premeditation doesn't need to be necessarily treated different than adding another killing charge to what already should receive the maximum sentencing.