When looking at the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not take into account the offender's motivations for breaking the law. A judge may find it morally right to reduce the punishment of an offender who had good intentions in committing the crime. An individual may find himself in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force him to commit a crime. Unfortunately for these individuals, the truth of the sentence from the perspective of equal justice does not allow the judge's discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people committed the same crime, but one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power to consider motive because all offenders of the same crime are considered equal. Limiting a judge's discretion creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on motivations, and a judge should have the ability to take this into account when making a decision that may have a significant impact on the life of another individual. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the prospect of fair justice require a judge's discretion to rightly establish a just sentence that takes into account all aspects of the individual and his or her behaviors.