I think from their perspective it was very different though. The article specifically talks about compensation to a woman's family if her husband kills her. It

I think from their perspective it was very different though. The article specifically talks about compensation to a woman's family if her husband kills her. It sounds like if a slave or a woman was killed, it was considered similar to someone's cattle being killed or a property crime, as opposed to a homicide of a free man, and thus something to be payed for. It seems that the remarkable thing about this story (aside from the emperor's involvement) was that usually a husband wouldn't be encouraged to kill himself for murdering his wife. Whereas in the barbarian kingdoms and later on, all murders were initially a private matter and people retained the right to kill someone back (not necessarily the killer) unless they opted for the compensation. If this specific case happened after the fall of the empire, probably the father would have just killed the husband back instead of seeking government involvement. And probably the husband's family would have not thought it fair and either seek compensation or kill another member of the wife's family. Either way, I'm glad things have changed since then!