the initial sentences for the Skaf brothers and co. were harsh and partly due in response to the hysteria their crimes caused
I had an opportunity to discuss the sentences with a former Supreme Court Justice who explained why he believed the sentences were harsh for two reasons: (1) as heinous as the crimes were (and they really were evil), they were - for lack of a better description - not as bad as some other violent crimes (eg. murder) and so, should have lesser sentences; and (2) if rape and murder, for example, carry the same punishment, then it might encourage perpetrators to behave more violently knowing that the additional violence carries no further sentence --> eg. if a rapist knows he would get 30 years in gaol for raping a woman and he will get the same 30 years in raping AND killing his victim AND it makes it more difficult to be identified by Police if there is no live victim, do we trust in the morals of the criminal to not go even further?
people though need to understand that the system does work... when it was discovered that a juror visited a crime scene, it was ruled that the jury and verdict was tainted and a re-trial ordered... furthermore, most (if not all) of the sentences were reduced on appeal
finally, for those that believe that Anglo-Australians wouldn't cop it as bad as immigrants/middle east/Muslims etc., the perpetrators of the Anita Cobby abduction, gang rape and murder (for example) got life in prison... and rightfully so