Create a personal response to this discussion post and make it a paragraph long:

I don't believe that everyone who commits a certain crime should receive the same punishment. It should only be done with offenders who have eerily similar situations and motivations. Sentencing should be guided by the facts and evidence of the case instead of just standard guidelines. While equity could make decisions on sentencing faster in the court, it can lead to unfairness within the court. Such as between two offenders that both robbed a convenience store, one doing it just to seem cool to friends, while the other does it for survival, they don't both deserve the same sentence. Since a person who is stealing for their family feels as though they really have no other option, there isn't any malicious intent; it is purely for survival. Compared to someone doing it on a dare, they aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions, and they don't need to rob anything for the thought of survival. Therefore, while one case had survival instincts and no malicious intent, the other was meant to be playful but instead had serious consequences. They may receive similar sentences but not the same as each other. Since the offender who stole for his family has the sympathy of the judge due to needing to do it for the family, compared to the other, who did it recklessly. But, it does also come down to having individualization between the two cases, since they both have different mens rea to their crimes. While also having proportionality, which means that sentences for similar crimes should not be identical, but have good reasons for them to be separate sentences based on the facts of the crime (Smykla 2020). All of these issues in sentencing help to keep the court fair and efficient, so that no one is taken advantage of in court, no matter the crime.