in my head, there's a direct causal chain:

1. the court presents me with the accusation and the evidence.
2. i declare if the evidence supports the accusation.
3. the judge declares a punishment in response to that verdict.
4. law enforcement delivers the punishment.

if i believe (3) and (4) will function as stated, then it's equally accurate to say that in step 2 i am deciding whether or not to confiscate $250,000 from this mother and cancel her home internet connection.

but a huge number of people i present this to refuse to admit that equivalence. there is some question about whether weakening the norm might cause more damage than mistreating the mother, but does that even weaken the point? the common answer from those who bring it up is "there's too much uncertainty to say": build a complex enough machine, and people are eager to deny the downstream effects of their actions.

(you can overcome most of the degradation-of-norms issue by making this a secret hearing, and still a lot of people will hesitate to admit the equivalence between their verdict in step 2 and the effects of step 3/4)