Why Women Are Not Safe

From a San Francisco Chronicle article titled: Judge reduces conviction in brutal killing. The emphasis is mine but desperately needed.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge reduced the first-degree murder conviction of a convicted batterer who slashed his wife's throat to second-degree murder Friday, saying there wasn't enough evidence the husband had weighed what he was doing before killing.
"This was a bloody, brutal, gruesome and savage killing," Judge Jerome Benson said. "But that's not proof of deliberation."
His decision overruled 12 jurors who convicted William Corpuz, 34, of first-degree murder in May 2007 after he confessed to using a fishing knife to slash the throat of his 31-year-old wife, Marisa Corpuz, in September 2004 in their Portola district home.
Corpuz told investigators he began thinking about killing his wife several hours before he did so, first loading a gun and setting it in the hallway, then deciding to use a knife and picking out three of them before deciding on the one he used, prosecutor Scot Clark said.
At the time of the murder, Corpuz was on probation for a September 2003 assault on his wife in which he choked her and shoved her face-first into the headboard of their bed. He had been enrolled in a 52-week domestic abuse program and had attended his 39th weekly session just four days before killing his wife.
Defense attorney Randall Martin noted that Corpuz had quickly turned himself in and confessed to the killing. He argued that Marisa Corpuz had taunted her husband and belittled his masculinity before the attack.
Benson's ruling made a fine legal distinction. The judge said the killing had been premeditated - that Corpuz had decided to kill before doing so - but ruled there was not sufficient proof of deliberation - that Corpuz had carefully weighed his choice and knew the consequences before killing.
Benson sentenced Corpuz to 15 years to life in prison, the maximum for second-degree murder, plus one year for using a knife in the killing. He also recommended that Corpuz not be granted parole once he is eligible.
Corpuz had faced 26 years to life in prison for first-degree murder.

So, let me get this straight... if you kill your WIFE, the one you are on parole for beating, you have not deliberated sufficiently to make it premeditated. However, any 17 year old (or 14 or 15 or 16 or even 11 year old) who uses a GUN to kill someone, should be prosecuted as an adult.

Why is that I get the feeling that a female judge would not have overruled the 12 jurors?