No, they should not - they should get the full sentence if they do plead "guilty" but have it doubled if they plead "not guilty" and then are found guilty. Phil Webberley, Preston

Pleading guilty and so receiving a lesser sentence merely helps the offender not the victim. They are the people least thought about in this PC climate in which no one is ever guilty and we must feel sorry for them. I do not believe that paedophiles can be cured and life should be life. Carole Tyrrell, London

What kind of person rapes babies and children? The two children in the most recent cases will have suffered great pain, physical damage and extreme trauma. Personally, I think the men who committed these outrages, and all the others like them, should be surgically castrated. They, at least would be given an anaesthetic, something which was not afforded to their victims. Then, when the "justice system" gives them their early parole they would be unable to torture any more innocent children. Bit simplistic, medieval and a violation of human rights? Well maybe it is, but I believe that extreme measures are called for to save children from being abused by these monsters. Alison Sydorenko, Whittlesey

Of course sentences should not be reduced in the event of an early guilty plea. This should just entitle the offender to serve the minimum but full sentence (no parole) for the particular crime. In the case of paedophiles these "people~" should never ever be released, even based on one offence, until some fool-proof method can be shown to provide a cure - and I don't mean some baloney from psychiatrists. I'm thinking more of castration. The bottom line is that we, the people, are always ignored by judges, lawyers, politicians, etc, who think they know better, but are constantly found out to know less. Common sense seems to be absent from Britain these days and God knows when or if it will ever return. Derek Sinclair, Dundee

If Craig Sweeney had been jailed for a real life term and not the disgraceful current Government life sentence of 5-10 years, then I see no wrong in letting him out of jail when he reaches the age of 65/70. For pleading guilty he should be allowed to die outside of prison instead of in it. The value of the lives of the law-abiding are worthless under the legal system today. We have a team of morons known as the Sentencing Guidelines Council whose job appears to be to keep criminals out of prison no matter the consequences. These people are paid with our taxes. David Thijm, Stourbridge

I saw last year that the EU's agenda includes the abolition of life sentences in all it's member states. Bit of a coincidence? Andrew Munn, Douala, Cameroon

Sincerity is surely a positive trait but as far as crime is concerned, it looks more like reward, since by pleading guilty a criminal gets away with his crime. It's no wonder that crime rates have doubled. A victim's devastated childhood seems to count less than the criminal's "honesty". Joy Aifantis, Athens, Greece

A guilty plea is treated as good behaviour and hence it is rewarded. However, no one seems to be concerned with punishment anymore. The reason we arrest, try and sentence someone is that they have committed a crime. The first part of a sentence should be a punishment, harsh enough so that it will deter others and the criminal himself, from repeating the crime in future. Once the punishment part is over, only then we should consider rehabilitation and rewards for good behaviour. A five year sentence is not punishment enough for this crime. Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

The Home Secretary criticises a judge who has applied the Government's rules. The sentences handed out in most cases are adequate. That's why there are so few appeals against sentences. Attacking judges who cannot really respond is an easy target for a government so caught up in spin rather than substance. This Government has passed a law on to the statute books and either not brought it into effect or brought it into effect piecemeal. They have made a complete mess of the criminal justice system - and blame everyone else. If Mr Reid came to court and talked to practitioners he would very quickly establish what works and what doesn't. Michael Robinson, Newcastle upon Tyne

If the object of the exercise is to get people out of prison, thus relieving pressure on the system, it may be better if some form of physical punishment was used in place of incarceration. It may be a good time to reintroduce the pillory and stocks. A good sharp lesson may serve a lot better than 12 months in jail. Now I'll wait for all the PC people to condemn me. Stephen Joseph, Leith, Tasmania

We need a system to encourage these monsters to admit to their crimes, not just given lenient sentences because they have incriminated themselves and subsequently held their hands up. In any event, the prison terms are far too lenient. They should be deprived of their freedom until they are too old or infirm to be a threat anymore. Thomas Forster, Seaham, County Durham

I agree with David Tedbury [below]. Applying higher sentences for those who do not plead guilty at the first opportunity. The idea of remission for offenders who clearly cannot be rehabilitated is a concept I think most people find offensive, not only victims but the public at large. At the very least, habitual, serious criminals should serve their full time which would lend an added deterrent. If history shows us anything it is a very urgent need for sentencing guidelines to be strengthened and made more transparent. Judges and politicians need to work much more closely together to bring about change, instead of bickering in the media. Paul Eccles, Reading

The idea of reducing actual "served" prison time for an early guilty plea is a practical approach in the main. Certain crimes, however, should be exempt from such a plea-bargain basis. Child crimes, rape, murder, attempted murder, GBH, terrorism and habitual offending should carry the full sentence, regardless of circumstances, remorse shown or clever representation via the legal profession. The law is there to defend the innocent and punish the guilty. At best, these days, it frustrates the victim and inconveniences the guilty. Judges and law-makers are either out of touch, or they heed their political masters to the detriment of a decent society. Like the government of the day, these people are the custodians and guardians of our society and our way of life. With the advent of the Human Rights Act and weak liberalism we have seen no improvement in the quality of life for the majority of UK citizens. Even to have this debate shows how far our legal system fails to protect and represent the most innocent and helpless of our citizens. These people who refuse to review it and want to protect it for their own domain are a disgrace to their public position. They forget why they are there and the moral ideal they must uphold. The legal system needs overhauling urgently. Philip Brown, London