I'm unclear on why you're asking. You're written the question to presuppose an answer, but I'm not clear on the point you're making. It doesn't seem germane to my comment above.
That it is humane and morally correct to not follow the rules of justice in some cases, one of those being excessive punishment. I believe that this was the motivation in the subject trial -- I would have acted in the same way. In the UK this is a "perverse verdict", judges and government don't like them, but there's not much they can do about it except restrict trial by jury (which is exactly what the UK government is planning to do).
Isn't the reason obvious? You said the jury is supposed to lack domain knowledge. Domain knowledge apparently includes knowing the possible sentence. The given example is a case where knowing the possible sentence would alter the verdict given by any reasonable person. Therefore the jury should have knowledge of the possible sentence. What is unclear about that?
Comments
I'm unclear on why you're asking. You're written the question to presuppose an answer, but I'm not clear on the point you're making. It doesn't seem germane to my comment above.
That it is humane and morally correct to not follow the rules of justice in some cases, one of those being excessive punishment. I believe that this was the motivation in the subject trial -- I would have acted in the same way. In the UK this is a "perverse verdict", judges and government don't like them, but there's not much they can do about it except restrict trial by jury (which is exactly what the UK government is planning to do).
Isn't the reason obvious? You said the jury is supposed to lack domain knowledge. Domain knowledge apparently includes knowing the possible sentence. The given example is a case where knowing the possible sentence would alter the verdict given by any reasonable person. Therefore the jury should have knowledge of the possible sentence. What is unclear about that?