The impartiality of juries only extends to what happens within the courtroom, they must not be swayed by anything that happens outside it. Everything else is fair game, including testimony.

Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience, which has been a principal of law for over 300 years. Your experience and consideration doesn’t get to decide for the jury what their decision must be.

That’s a little bit misleading, they’re supposed to determine the facts based on the evidence, then provide a verdict.

When giving a verdict they can take into account the severity of the penalty and the circumstances of the crime.

I think a jury should hear the motivation for the defendant’s actions: as a counterexample consider a defendant on trial for breaking their parole (under freedom of movement), but who did so to rescue people from a burning building. A jury would have to hear the motivation to take this into account.

Even with (B) changing cultural attitudes can lead to rights being revoked without being viewed as suppression. The line between something being recognised by the people and granted by the government is a fuzzy one.