The pendulum swings both ways. A true judge should be able to show mercy or intolerance depending upon circumstance with justice for victims and safety of society given due consideration.

The question I posed was theoretical. For the moment, remove it from our circumstances and our failures. On one extreme, there's 14-15th Century Japan where the same offense was openly viewed as deserving different punishment depending on the offender's status. A nobleman could murder a peasant and be given a slap on the wrist, when as a peasant would be beheaded. On the other side, in some countries in Europe a rich person is given a higher fine for the same offense than a poor person is. Are any of those situations just? Then again - is the purpose of a sentence to preclude one of committing an offense, to punish for the offense, or to reform a person from desiring to commit the next offense or perhaps to bring restitution to the victim? If all of the above, I would argue that it is difficult to satisfy four disparate requirements in one action. And perhaps to throw in more confusion, a relatively minor punishment to an otherwise upstanding individual may satisfy more of the above requirements than a heavier punishment to a recidivist.