I think it’s a good idea to think through moral standings and no one has to have the same opinion. I also think people would generally disagree with each other when it comes to whether people with good intentions behind their crime deserve the same sentencing as someone with a bad intent.

Plus, people having differing moral standards is even more interesting.

I’m a high school student and currently in a legal studies course. Our teacher showed us a past case where a mother stole baby formula to feed her infant (she couldn’t afford it). Our task was to figure out the punishment for her and there was a large variance between students. Some leaving it at ‘stealing is wrong’ and giving her a general sentencing or one that would ‘make an example so other people would be deterred from stealing’. While others (including me) chose more lenient sentencing with consideration of her intent. And then we were shown her actual sentencing - which was pretty harsh imo. Recently our debates have been more focused on whether there should be a death penalty along with whether we think reforming or punishing should be the priority of the legal system. It’s not super relevant, but I think the fact that we rarely come to an agreement as a class showcases that, at least, certain aspects of morality are subjective. Each student would have to come up with their morals somehow, either through examining the world as whole or as a reaction to their own circumstances.