There is somewhat of a social understanding that celebrities and wealthy individuals are typically judged less harshly than average citizens when it comes to breaking the law and being punished for those crimes.

The level of inconsistency between sentencing for celebrities and average citizens is a major concern. The main reason that laws and punishments for violating laws are written down is so that consistency can be maintained.

To be clear, there is no doubt that celebrities are not always guilty of the crimes they have been charged with. However, it does seem that a person’s wealth and social status have a direct impact on the degree to which society applies laws to them.

At the present time, there is not a more prevalent example than that of Ray Rice, a recently suspended professional football player who was caught assaulting his fiancee on video. Rice was not given a prison sentence, but instead a year-long probation.

The legal system of the United States needs to hold prominent citizens to the same standards to which it holds the rest of us. That standard must include the same degrees of punishment.

It is no great secret that the often talented legal defense which celebrities have access to as a result of their wealth is a significant factor in keeping them out of jail—oftentimes out of trouble entirely.

Meanwhile, common citizens who have committed the same crimes spend years behind bars. In some cases, these average citizens are released years after their sentencing when the case is reviewed or new evidence is discovered. How many stories have you heard about a wrongly convicted celebrity?

These stories are rare, if not nonexistent, because our most prominent social figures are often given the benefit of the doubt in these situations. We idolize many of these individuals to the point of disregarding their sometimes obvious shortcomings.

That is not to say that celebrities should be judged any more harshly than we would expect to be judged ourselves, because, after all, they are only human.

One defense that is often given to celebrities when they find themselves on the wrong side of the law is not a legal tactic but an excuse that we supply for them. The defense is that celebrities face higher levels of social scrutiny because their crimes are more widely publicized. The defense is that they are punished by the court of public opinion.

While those assertions are certainly valid, they are not substantial excuses for the lenient nature of our legal system. Would you rather have people stop going to your movies or would you rather serve a prison sentence? Would you prefer a decline in your jersey sales or a decline in your freedom?

We are in large part to blame for the inequalities in punishment for our celebrities. That is because we love, admire and respect them. We want them to be better than “normal people.” The truth is, they are normal people and we need to treat them as such, even if only for their own good.

Many celebrities commit these crimes and become repeat offenders because we never hold them accountable for their actions. They feel as though they are above the law. And why shouldn’t they believe they are correct if that’s what we tell them?

The principle of the prison system is behavioral modification. If the legal system truly believes that their prison system works, why would it not sentence famous criminals more fairly?

If a celebrity is arrested on drug charges, but is sentenced only to probation and rehab, then all drug users should be sentenced similarly, because the courts have seemingly indicated that rehabilitation is more effective than a jail cell.

If there is not a standard measure of justice for all citizens of the United States, then there is no measure of justice for any of us.