Should Everyone be Treated Equally?

Does justice always mean that people are to be treated equally?  This may perhaps seem to be the case.  If I were a judge whose job it was to try two people for murder today, and if the respective juries found both equally guilty, would it be right for me to give one person sentence of death and the other a life sentence in jail?  Certainly not!  However, if I were to give both the same sentence, would that mean that I am treating everyone equally?

There are many people in the courtroom beyond the two accused.  If justice requires that every person be treated equally, ought I not to pronounce the death sentence upon the two convicted murderers, the twelve jury members, the witnesses, the spectators, and – for the sake of impartiality – myself as well?  Such a scenario would be absurd!  The characters and merits of the various individuals under consideration are not equal.  Of course, the characters and merits of the two murderers are not equal either, but the relevant aspects are.  Justice, it may be argued, consists of determining what the relevant aspects in a given situation are and treating people possessing equal character and merit respective to the relevant aspect equally, and, conversely, treating those with unequal character and merit respective to the relevant aspect unequally.

Likely no one would take the sentence, “everyone should be treated equally,” in an absolute sense.  In general, what is meant by this is probably some variation of the expanded version given above.  However, as a reading of the expanded version shows, the maxim is not very helpful.  It gives us no help in determining what the relevant aspect is or in determining wherein equality with respect to that aspect consists.  Thus, the phrase is misleading and, even when properly understood, too vague to be useful.