Every so often you hear of a famous person, rather it be an athlete, actor, or musician getting preferential treatment from the judicial system, the question is how do we separate what is actually preferential treatment from normal everyday happenings? What I'm talking about right now is specifically J.R. Smith and the accident that he caused by running a stop sign, in which one of the passengers in his vehicle died. Smith was given a ticket for his transgressions, however by reading the comments here on Foxsports it seems some people would like to see Smith charged with vehicular manslaughter. My question is, would the ends justify the means, or is this an example of a public who is tired of hearing about famous people getting preferential treatment 'crying wolf'? Every day there are a plethora of car accidents throughout the nation, in many of these someone does not walk away. And in most of them no one is charged with any type of crime, or at least not something as major as vehicular manslaughter. You don't hear people complain about these hundreds of thousands of cases, so why is it that this one is special? The circumstances are the same, however the names are not. J.R. Smith is a name that almost any basketball fan recognizes. So instead of getting preferential treatment it seems that a lot of people would like to see the opposite done, they would like to see Smith 'made an example' of how the US judicial system is not going to cater to these rich and famous who seem to think they are above the law. Well, just as giving someone a break because they are famous is wrong, so is punishing them more so than a regular Joe. Instead of wanting to see Smith in jail because of who he is, we should ask if we would want to see one of our family members, one of our coworkers, or one of our friends thrown in jail for the same thing. Because in the end, no matter what his name is, J.R. Smith is just that, a family member, a coworker, and a friend.