Passage Summary: A theorist argues that even though some people with good intentions might deserve lighter sentences, judges shouldn't give them because it's too easy for a criminal to lie about why they did what they did.

Conclusion: Judges should never reduce a criminal's punishment based on their motives.

Reasoning: Motives are difficult to determine with certainty and can be easily faked by criminals to appear more altruistic than they actually are.

Analysis: The theorist makes a jump from a practical problem—that motives are hard to prove—to a hard-and-fast moral rule that they should never be used. To justify this, we need a principle that bridges the gap between 'this is difficult to verify' and 'this should never be done.' Look for an answer that suggests legal systems should prioritize objective, verifiable facts over subjective, potentially deceptive ones. It’s a bit like a parent refusing to believe a child's 'I was just trying to help' excuse because, let's face it, the vase is still broken and kids are creative liars.