SIR - You highlighted that almost 100 sex offenders in Worcestershire - including eight rapists - have escaped with just a caution in the last five years (Worcester News, April 2).

If a percentage of these people are guilty of serious sex offences, then what is the Crime Prosecution Service doing by only giving them a caution?

These offenders should had been dealt with by the courts and, if found guilty, sent to prison for life.

As for the remaining number, it is wrong to insinuate they are all serious sex offenders.

After scrutinising the listed cases, I could only see 16 serious offences, which certainly needed to be dealt with by the courts and not with a caution.

The remaining offences may sound terrible, but may not be at closer examination. For example, 41 committed indecent assault, 17 for sexual assault, and 11 for other sexual offences.

The problem today is that under the new Act, if you were to unintentionally touch a person in an non-sexual way, especially someone under the age of 16 years, you may find yourself receiving a caution and being put on the sex register - even if you have never had a similar conviction.

This is ridiculous, because you should not be put in the same category as those prolific serious sex offenders.

You are innocent until proven guilty, but unfortunately if you are given a choice of a caution or being charged, most will chose a caution. This is because if they do not, the alternative is being charged and their name and addresses appearing in the papers before they can prove their innocence.

Finally, one of the main reasons why cautions are frequently given, is due to the CPS being under pressure to cut the huge costs which some of these court cases involve. This is is similar to how the courts have been advised by the Government to only send people to prison for the most serious crimes.

It is disgusting how more importance is placed on saving money, rather than seeing justice served to victims and the accused.

Mrs Sarah Giles, Worcester.