So i am Austrian and not all that intimate with the exact details of the the proposed changes but to me it reads more like a purely legal problem and a redefinition of the murder categories.

In Germany you have to prove Heimtücke, google translates that as insidiousness, for it to be murder. Afaik legal professionals in Germany are very unhappy with that because it's a poorly defined wording. But because murder carries a mandatory life long sentence you can imagine that it's a rather important distinction whether something is murder or nor not.

Now reading the article and not consulting other sources leads me to the conclusion that all they propose is to widen the definition of murder by removing the element of insidiousness to include all cases of somebody willingly killing someone that's defenseless. That would include crimes of passion etc. something that doesn't carry life long sentences even in the US. So because they widened the category they can't justify a mandatory life sentence anymore and have to include possibilities for the judges to lower the sentencing according to the circumstances.

So in effect all the changes do is to redefine murder as something that isn't as narrow of a category as it is now in germany and give the judges more granular control over the sentencing of this new category. The consequence of that is that it is easier to give higher sentences in fringe cases where insidiousness was too hard to prove until now.

The political will hasn't changed at all. Murder is still bad. But the legal system has more adequate tools in it's arsenal should they be able to produce an adequate reform. As I said it's a legal and not a political problem at least how it reads to me.