What are you expecting from me ... an evidence based peer reviewed policy document? No, I'm expecting an example of a policy from any political party which advocates a "soft on crime" approach. Your earlier comment said "Then again, I'm also against mass immigration, PC politics *and going Soft on crime (or being percieved to be)*". You're opposed to "going soft on crime" - well, where's an example of any party advocating that?
sure, instead currently rapists often get sentences that are too short. According to who? Journalists writing for the Daily Mail? Criminals are handed sentences in line with guidelines from the sentencing council as I understand it. Are you saying you have a better idea of appropriate sentencing than they do?
So? Reform them. Did I say we shouldn't? "However, you do not treat criminals with kid gloves, so in the here and now, as sad as it may be because they are products of Tory economic inequality, we must be very tough on criminals, whilst also reforming our economy so in the future there are less criminals being made." <<< I don't know how else to interpret this. "Very tough on criminals" says to me, and I'd wager for a lot of people, that you advocate longer prison sentences - or as you say in another of your comments, building more prisons to incarcerate more offenders rather than "letting them off" without a prison sentence - over for example community based sentences, which the "A Smarter Approach to Sentencing" white paper advocates:
"Community sentences can and should be tailored to address the individual needs and problems that contribute to reoffending, as well as to punish offenders and provide reparation to the community. While short custodial sentences may punish those who receive them, they often fail to rehabilitate the offender or stop reoffending. Evidence suggests that community sentences, in certain circumstances, are more effective in reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. A Ministry of Justice 2019 study found that sentencing offenders to short term custody with supervision on release was associated with higher proven reoffending than if they had instead received community orders and/or suspended sentence orders."
You don't know what my postion is You've been explaining what your position is in this comments thread. Though you're difficult to pin down since your position seems to switch between "we must be very tough on all criminals" and then when challenged switch to "no I meant rapists". So what is your position? It doesn't require a peer reviewed policy document to explain your opinion. I don't see how asking you for examples of policy which you must have formed your opinion in opposition to is beyond reasonable.
You're projecting. How? I've not drawn upon emotive examples or employed populist rhetoric about rapists getting away with short sentences or criminals avoiding jail sentences unjustly, you did. I'm advocating an approach to justice which combines an element of punishment with rehabilitation so that individuals who go through the system don't emerge the other side likely to reoffend. That's not about giving ex-offenders some "advantage", that's about wanting a just outcome for both the individual and society. I don't see how some vague notion of "being tough on crime" achieves that.