I feel you are misunderstanding me. I am not asking about hypotheticals where the police lie. I am saying that in a hypothetical where YOU can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.

It’s not about rehabilitation or punishment. It’s about logistics. If there is a dog that repeatedly attacks other people, children and dogs and rehabilitation has failed. The only recourse would be to terminate that dog as it is unsafe for society for the dog to be allowed out. Sure, you could build a secure containment facility to house your inmate dog but at what cost. At that point you are then taking resources that could be better spent to help people in need to contain a problem that will not be solved. I am actually in agreement with you that it’s a far crueler punishment to keep somebody alive in a non autonomous position that they would hate.

Would you be for a death penalty in cases where you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person that is accused is the perpetrator? And by shadow of a doubt, I am not referring to the very loose standards that most law enforcement relies on. I mean that the person was caught in the act.