These crimes not intended by the perpetrators to annoy large segments of the population, or likely to, for that matter. I assure you, though, that if somebody killed you because they didn't like me, I would feel justified in being disproportionately annoyed with them. I am very aware with disparity in sentencing and have often wondered how a republic as dedidacted to a fixed rule of law as ours can produce outcomes that, at their face value, appear contrary to a just government. Yet I like you am reminded of the near sacred trust that is rightly placed in the jury, a collection of humans who have before them a grave task, providing the justice they see fit. Surely the jury often makes errors - no juror can be called perfect.
Surely jurors can be lazy, ignorant, prejudiced, and other blinding characteristics.
Yet, the jury is the only place in our republican government where the citizen has a direct say in the application of the law. The works of Lysander Spooner promoted the rights of the juror to use his post to nullify the laws he saw as wrong. While many people may think nullification to be wrong, it is actually a precedent established by the English common law system under the Magna Carta. I think it great that a juror is afforded determination of severity of punishment and also of whether or not the law should be enforced at all. More prone to error, and in a position where error is far more damaging to the justice process, are prosecutors and investigators.