Because the sentences show a blatant disregard for the 8th amendment, and because judges & prosecutors want to rein in juries, keeping them from realizing that they are the true power in the courtroom. (Esp. Grand Juries.)
Thank you for the info maybe we will all be arm chair Attys on the next High profile case!
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but the fact that a jury would balk at a particular sentence is prima facie evidence that they true fact-finders of the case, whose judgment is supposed to be beyond question, have determined that the prescribed punishment would be cruel and unusual punishment if applied to the case at hand. Note that it is entirely possible for two distinct criminal acts not to differ in any way recognized by statute, but for a jury to recognize one as truly heinous and worthy of life in prison and the other as being worthy of a $100 fine. Without knowing the prescribed punishment, a jury can't know whether the sentence attached to a finding of guilt would be appropriate for the greater or lesser crime. If there's no doubt that the defendant committed the lesser crime (and not the greater one), the jury should convict if the sentence would fit that crime, but acquit if the sentence would fit the greater one.
The only cases I can think of where an understanding of sentences would cause a jury to acquit are those where a jury would likely find that the nature of the defendant's particular criminal act was sufficiently minor that the associated punishment would violate the Eighth Amendment. And in those cases, the jury should acquit.
BTW, I'd like to see a procedure whereby a jury could specify a limit or range of sentences when issuing their verdict, which the parties to the case could either accept or reject (sending the jury back for further deliberations). If the prosecutor doesn't think a sentence is harsh enough, he could send the case back to the jury and gamble on whether it will allow a harsher sentence or acquit outright. In any case, if a jury would find that a particular sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, it would.
Judges usually say you will not allow sympathy to enter into your considerations. You are the trier of fact and determine only the guilt or non-guilt of the accused. The Court’s province is to determine the punishment (penalty).
It is a separation of duties thing.