In the parking ticket case I think it's interesting and not clear-cut b/c on one hand you have the "treat all equal before the law" and on the other hand you ha

In the parking ticket case I think it's interesting and not clear-cut b/c on one hand you have the "treat all equal before the law" and on the other hand you have desired outcomes. It's hard for me ethically not to fall on the side of treating everyone equally under the law versus trying for specific outcomes. If you wanted to go for outcomes can you help me distinguish why you wouldn't sentence a poor person to lesser jail time or insurance payout (car wreck) or w/e lesser amount than a rich person? Does a wealthy person have more to lose by murdering someone? Less? I just don't think it's clear cut but for my part I'm definitely open minded on it. It's kind of the equality of opportunity versus equality of outcomes thing - I'm definitely on the equality of opportunity camp with probably a base versus equality of outcome.