Should there be a 'Sarah's Law'?

DG, I agree that Sarah's Law is a bad idea which would encourage sink-estate lynch-mobs and be counterproductive to rehabilitation, but there must be something seriously wrong with the current legal set-up if a predatory paedophile can abduct a child at knife-point, sexually abuse her for hours, serve only two years for it and then go on to kill. Isn't that cause for justified outrage? What bothers me is the implication that the concern this case has generated is some kind of simple-minded knee-jerk moral hysteria from people who would happily brush the real problem under the carpet. Yes, abuse within families is a hellishly complex problem to address and if the same were true of stranger abuse then it would be reasonable to focus attention on the larger problem first, but the fact that there are straightforward practical measures (renewable sentences, say) which can be put in place to help protect at least some children from these appalling crimes (which are not 'irrelevant' so long as they happen at all) is precisely what justifies the demands for action made by people whose outcry over this case and cases like it in no way means they wouldn't like to see abuse tackled wherever it occurs.

On the mental illness point - paedophiles have abnormal innate desires but is there any evidence that this leads to them being fundamentally less capable of choosing whether or not to act on their desires? It's not as if they hear voices ordering them to molest children.