Should justice be blind? Or should our status, intelligence, contribution (real or potential) play a role in the punishment we receive after committing a crime?
I posed these questions after watching Gregory David Roberts' interview on Skavlan where he asked for the right to serve any prison sentence imparted to Odd Nerdrum. Arguing that a genius should not be sent to prison as this would rob the world of his talents, Roberts called for more creative prison sentencing.
There is no doubt that the prison system must be reformed. Jail should not break people, it should not be physically or psychologically abusive. Instead, it should rehabilitate them to society. Regardless, justice must be the same for all irrespective of talent, wealth, class, race, gender or religion. We must be judged on our crime, motive and character; any endowments we may (or may not) possess should not influence our punishment. 
Recently, a similar debate arose following the case of Lavinia Woodward, a medical student at Oxford university. Reffering to her extraordinary ability, judge Ian Pringle QC was quoted by newspapers as postponing Lavinia's sentencing and suggesting possible jail evasion.
The details of Lavinia's case, reported with a certain amount of bias and omission, do not intrest me as much as the idea, in principle, that it might be acceptable for justice to discriminate based on factors that should not matter. Should we allow a surgeon to be sentenced more leniantely than a shopkeeper? What would that say about us as? Would such discrimination not question our equality as human beings? Would it not imply that we assign value to life based on its utility rather than for its own sake?      
"Let justice be done though the heavens fall"