Severe Punishments for Deterrence

The petition is entitled Empower the Courts to (at their discretion) impose exemplary "deterrent" sentences, including the death penalty, for crimes of premeditated murder, physical violence, drug-trafficking and child abuse and the explanatory notes say

"For too long, our career politicians, lawyers and liberal apologists for criminal behaviour appear to have favoured the "so-called rights" of criminals rather than the "real rights" of their unfortunate victims. If the United Kingdom were to introduce sentences of "real" deterrence including the death penalty where appropriate, I am certain that we would see an instant and real reduction in crime figures (without the need for this "out of touch with the real world" Government to massage / spin the figures as they are so apt to do). I hope you will agree that, whilst this will certainly upset the tax-payer funded social engineers of our society, my proposal does represent an ample measure of plain common sense which will strike a chord with ordinary, hard working and law abiding people. If you agree, do please add your name to this petition. Thank you."

I'm glad to say that as yet it seeems not to be striking all that profound a chord with anybody, since so far there are only 7 signatories. However.

The petitioner has phrased the petition oddly: since most sentences are imposed at "the courts' discretion" (as I understand it, anyway) he could more simply have petitioned the prime minister to introduce more punitive measures, including capital punishment, or something else simple, for the various crimes to which he takes particular exception.

Then we get on to the rant and ramble of his explanatory notes. Evidence we lack, for his claim that the "so-called rights of criminals" being favoured over the "real rights" of their victims, as far as I'm aware.

The petitioner believes in the "deterrence" effect of capital and other severe punishments, in the face of great swathes of international evidence that the death penalty, at least, has no deterrent effect. Of course, that's because he believes that the evidence is "massaged" and "spun" by "the Government", presumably for shadowy or liberal reasons of their own.

I wonder who on earth he thinks the "tax-payer funded social engineers of our society" are?