[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

This is not directly relevant to the topic of discussion here, but speaking of intention, why does intention play a major role in murder cases ? For example the penalty for murdering a spouse with the intention of collecting insurance is different from the penalty given for say rage killing--eg finding out that the spouse has been unfaithful. Is the penalty punishing the thought or the crime ? I don't know the answer.. I am just wondering.

[CertainInalienableRights]

For example the penalty for murdering a spouse with the intention of collecting insurance is different from the penalty given for say rage killing--eg finding out that the spouse has been unfaithful

At least in your example, there is reason to treat the two crimes differently. In the former, there is a certain cold calculation - one has to decide that the value of the taken life is less than the monetary gain to the perp. Then, one has to plan such a deed (presumably trying not to be caught). One assumes that the killer is fully aware of the consequences of their actions and yet decides to carry them out anyhow, and purely for financial gain.

In a rage killing, you could have an isolated case of a person so overwhelmed with emotion, that they react without thinking, possibly not intending to kill, but using excessive force being blinded by anger. There's no intent or forethought involved, and probably not much consideration of the consequences. Plus, a jury can understand being so angered that a person could lash out - the jury may even sympathize with the killer, where its difficult to find sympathy in one who plans a murder for financial gain.

Just my thoughts...