[tptacek]

It really depends on what you're "making an example of".

The words "making an example" are just a way of describing deterrence, which is a core function of the criminal justice system.

Deterrence is intrinsically neither good nor bad. It depends on what you're deterring. If it's arson, deterrence makes a lot of sense: it's fun and easy to set fires, and very easy to underestimate or disregard the harm those fires will do to others. If it's political tagging, deterrence makes much less sense. The justice system needs to extract a penalty for damaging people's property, but politically-motivated tags are a low-intensity problem.

Beyond deterrence, criminal penalties must account for the inefficiency of policing and the rewards to crime. A 1:1 damage/penalty system is intrinsically ineffective; it makes crime a rational decision.

It's easy to agree here that 3 years of probation for tagging in a deliberate attempt to get arrested to make a political point is abusive.

[gtz59]

This describes how deterrence is justifiable, not how it is fair.

[tptacek]

What is the difference between justice and fairness?

[gtz59]

"justifiable" - defensible, makes sense

"fair" - treating people equally

In other words, I interpret the original question as: "how is making an example not considered unusual?".