Some judges complain about statutes that specify mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offenses. These legal restrictions, they argue, are too mechanical and prevent judges from deciding when an individual can or cannot be rehabilitated.

"BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHY MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES ARE NECESSARY."

Why? History amply demonstrates that when people are free to use their own judgment, they invariably believe themselves to act wisely when they are often arbitrary and irrational. There is no reason to think that judges are an exception to this rule.

Which one of the following sentences most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

A) People believe that they have good judgment but never do.
B) Mandatory minimum sentences are too mechanical and reduce judicial discretion.
C) Judges should be free to exercise their own judgment.
D) Judges are often arbitrary and irrational.
E) Mandatory minimum sentences are necessary to help prevent judicial arbitrariness.

E) Mandatory minimum sentences are needed (NECESSARY) to help prevent judicial arbitrariness is most accurately expresses the main point of the passage.

These statutes are seen as mechanical and rigid, seemingly limiting a judge's discretion in identifying whether an individual can be rehabilitated. However, the main point of the passage is that mandatory minimum sentences are necessary to prevent judicial arbitrariness.

History shows that when people use their own judgment, they can be irrational and arbitrary, and judges are no exception.

In the 1970s, parole and time off for good behavior were common, which provided incentives for good conduct and skill acquisition in prisons.

However, media reports on crimes committed by parolees led to "truth-in-sentencing" laws, establishing mandatory minimums or fixed sentences to reduce crimes committed by previously paroled individuals.

This change aimed to make the justice system more stringent and reduce subjective decisions from judges that could lead to inconsistent justice outcomes.