I don’t think sentencing ever really fits the crime. I don’t think it can.
For the most part the longer sentences involved multiple crimes and multiple occasions or really young girls and are in keeping with sentencing guidelines (which, IMO, on the whole make reasonable value judgements between what’s worse and what’s not, though it’s always painful to put objective criteria on something that’s going to be hugely personal to the victim).
The outlier seems to be the suspended sentence, which seems not only unreasonably lenient given one victim was still a child but also probably less likely to be of any reformative value unless there were some conditions attached that weren't reported (because a homeless man has little incentive to stick to a suspended sentence and will have a harder time accessing any help if he did wish to change).
On the whole, I believe, we’d be better off with a lot more men convicted and shorter sentences than longer sentences and the current virtual immunity men have for sexual assault, so I’m more concerned with concentrating on changing criminal procedure to increase convictions.