Related this to my previous statement, the accused had to be tried. The first problem that arises is the fact that judges can decide as they see fit towards the accused. We all have times when we feel better than others and this can affect our reasoning as well as our attitude towards certain aspects of life. This statement also applies to judges when they are in court. Naturally, they are supposed to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime committed and propose a reasonable and appropriate sentence, but some judges let their personal matters interfere. Although this may seem completely unfair in the eyes of the accused, the judge shows signs of inequality when he lets the victim's signs of weakness influence his final verdict. The judge is there to render a verdict and impose the appropriate punishment associated with the crime committed. If the judge changes his decision based on his point of view as well as how he feels about the accused, it means the judge is biased. This creates inequality between the accused members, because if different people have been accused of the same crime and are tried by the same judge, they could get different verdicts depending on what the judge thinks and feels about them. Beccaria states that "we see the same court