Punishment for criminals, way too soft.?

Question

This a bit of new I read today :
Elms was jailed for life at the Old Bailey in March 1996 for raping a teenager at knifepoint. He previously served a four-year sentence for indecently assaulting a 15-year-old schoolgirl

There is no way a rapist should be allowed to rape someone, get just 4 years in prison, get out and then rape more people.
I think the justice system in this country (Wales) and probably many other countries is way way too soft. Surley crimes of this seriousness sould contain punishments that stop these people ever being able to reoffend. Maybe even they should be sentenced to death on their second (or maybe even first) offence. They can't possibly argue that they didn't know it was wrong. Everyone at that age knows rape is wrong.
My question quite simply is :
Is the law way too soft on criminals, and should it be allowed to be much much harder on serious offenders.

This is where i read the news (local news for me) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5228098.stm

and they can't argue that it is too expensive locking rapists and murderers up, putting them to death wouldn't be expensive, and it would result in a 0% re-offending rate.

and Anjelkake the thing seperating me from the prisoners is that they are thiefs, rapists, murderers, and violent criminals, I am not.

zclifton I meant not anjelkake

Answer 1

Agreed, too soft. Same here in the U.S. I don't know why some people just walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Answer 2

We have the same thing across the pond. The law is FAR too soft on offenders. Rapists should be sterilized at minimum, and euthanized at best. They are not reformable. The same should be said of all serial criminals. Crooks shoudl not be allowed to develope an arrest record a mile long, and then we end up wondering WHERE the system failed. 3 strikes, and you're OUT. The world would be a far better place. And less of our money would go toward supporting those being incarcerated.

Answer 3

I think the law is too lienent on serious criminals of physical offence. Yes, I do side that when a certain amount of physical evidence proves positive, death penalty should be used.

However, the law allows for the idea that the accused may in fact be a target of a malicious person. (something like a witch hunt) What that means, is that the person accused could also be completely under circumstantial evidence and thus not a criminal of the crime committed. Some men have even been freed from death row proving beyond a shadow of a doubt their innocence by means of DNA. (proved their DNA did not match DNA of the ejaculate in the woman)

But I digress, we should use a firing range or a grand form of torture to those who would be found evident physically guilty of rape of a woman, or child.

Answer 4

Well there is some assumptions you are jumping to that really need to be challenged. In the first place, we are the place where we grew up. Do you recognize this assertion? So, if you want to punish the original sinner, then punish your government.

I mean the single redeeming quality to the story of "Lonesome Dove" is when the main character says, I paraphrase, "We killed all the Indians and Mexicans off, but I liked them better than the bankers and real estate agents, who took there place."

Be careful with who you condemn to a life in prison, without the possibility of parole, because you and might be the next victim. Remember that the only thing separating you from the prisoners is a legal mistake.

Answer 5

Yes its way too soft. The government say its because of over crowding in the prisons so they need to free up space, but you wouldn't let an man out of hospital half way through an operation because of a long waiting list.

As for sex offenders and child predators I say the obvious answer is castration. If they can't be trusted to use their manhood's then they shouldn't have them.