Should a celebrity have the right to be heard above others in a plea for leniency? What if that plea is surrounding the sentencing for a drug offender? If the offender is facing a mandatory sentence, should the rules bend?

This is the question standing before the judge presiding over the case of Cameron Douglas, son of celebrity Michael Douglas, according to an article in The Frisky.

The younger Douglas is facing a mandatory 10 years in prison for selling drugs in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District in 2009. He admitted to the crime and has spent the past eight months in a correctional facility. The elder Douglas believes leniency is in order simply because those eight months have been good for his son.

Traditionally, the sins of the father are said to be carried by the son. In this case, the father claims the family’s fame and history of addiction contributed to the son’s drug problems and criminal behavior. In a letter written to the judge, he states: “We do know, however, that genes, family, and peer pressure are all a strong influence on a substance abuser.”

This article’s writer is bluntly opposed to the use of celebrity to escape accountability and that Cameron Douglas should serve every day of a mandatory sentence. He highlights that while Cameron did not get to choose his family, he did make the choice to break the law. His relation to anyone in particular should not weigh on the decision to hand down a sentence as mandated by law.

In the end, Cameron Douglas was sentenced to five years in prison and will spend another five years in a supervised released program. He was also ordered to pay $25,000 in fines.