"You pay a price when you have an objective sentencing system. That is, nothing is perfect"

The quote by Jeff Sessions, "You pay a cost when you have an unbiased sentencing system. That is, absolutely nothing is best", talks to the fundamental compromises embedded in the criminal justice system, especially in how sentences are identified for those convicted of crimes. This statement suggests that while an objective sentencing system aims to offer harmony and fairness, it is not without its flaws.

An unbiased sentencing system seeks to standardize the penalties imposed on people convicted of similar offenses, decreasing the impact of subjective aspects such as personal biases of judges. The principle behind such a system is to guarantee fairness, transparency, and equality, so that people in similar scenarios get comparable penalties. This is frequently accomplished through guidelines that measure various aspects of a criminal offense and the criminal's history to produce a suggested sentence range.

However, Sessions' quote recommends that there are sacrifices involved in adhering to such a structured technique. The "price" paid may consist of an absence of flexibility to think about the nuances of private cases. Circumstances that do not fit neatly into prescribed categories might result in sentences that feel unjustified either to the accused or to society. Furthermore, an overly stiff system might fail to take into consideration individual growth, regret, or extenuating circumstances that could influence a better suited, albeit less uniform, sentencing outcome.

Moreover, asserting that "nothing is best" indicate the wider understanding that in spite of striving for neutrality, no system can attain absolute perfection. There will always be cases where the system falls short, either by appearing too lax or exceedingly extreme, depending upon the context and the general public's understanding of justice. Sessions seems to acknowledge here the complexity and the obstacle of attaining true justice within the restraints of structured legal standards.

In essence, while an unbiased structure intends to bring order and consistency to sentencing, it is essential to stay vigilant about its possible restrictions and constantly seek methods to adjust and fine-tune it, ensuring it serves the ends of justice successfully.