Reconnecting to my previous statement, the accused needed to be tried. The first problem that arises is the fact that judges can rule as they want against the accused. We all have moments when we feel we are better than others and this can influence our reasoning as well as our attitude towards certain aspects of life. This statement also applies to judges when they are in court. Of course they should determine whether the defendant is guilty of the crime committed and propose a reasonable and appropriate punishment, but some judges let their personal affairs get in the way. While this may seem completely unfair to the accused, the judge shows signs of inequality when he lets the victim's signs of weakness influence the final verdict. The judge is there to render a verdict and to mete out the appropriate punishment associated with the crime committed. If the judge changes his decision based on his own point of view and feelings towards the accused, this means that the judge is biased. This creates an inequality between the accused members because if different people were accused of the same crime and went to the same judge, they could get different verdicts depending on what the judge thinks and feels about them. Beccaria specifies that ''we see the same court