> If you view the point of the criminal justice system as establishing social norms, then the length of punishment and aggressiveness of enforcement matter a lo

> If you view the point of the criminal justice system as establishing social norms, then the length of punishment and aggressiveness of enforcement matter a lot less. The more basic type of deterrence is a strong justification for our justice system, but your point that it also exists to adjust social norms is excellent, and often not considered. You referred to prosecutors, but it's not just the government that doles out social norms... Back in the 1950s and 60s, civil rights leaders would drive from town to town defending black people accused of crimes. They were great lawyers, but due to a variety of reasons (the big one being racism), they lost case after case. The vast majority of their cases actually. Even though they lost many cases, the very fact that these well spoken lawyers were representing people of color started setting social norms. They were fighting back. They cross-examined white witnesses, and showed everyone was entitled to a good lawyer, and that the word of a white person could not be trusted any more than a person of color. The point is that courts are often used as a vehicle for larger social change. It's generally free to engage (minus your time), you get an public audience, you get agents of the state to make official pronouncements (e.g., the judge, jury, prosecutor), and even the accused and lawyers get to say their bit in a (relatively) safe environment.