Do you even read my posts? I repeat, as I have done again and again, that I believe circumstances have to be taken into account.<quoted text>I am not thinking in extremes - obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but on the whole, your proposition is impossible and would only create a society in which the have nots are culled by the haves. Some might be truly "evil" and deserving of punishment, some might have turned to crime out of necessity, and some might be wrongly convicted. Either way, there is no way for a non post scarcity society to be so perfect that only the "bad guys" commit crime, and there is no appeal available for the dead father who stole repeatedly to feed his family, or the no luck guy who gets wrongly convicted.
You have this picture in your head of of everyone who steals getting their hands chopped and everyone who kills getting their head chopped. It doesn't work that way at all.
As for this issue of innocents dying, some will die. But you have to look at overall effectiveness. About 3% of women taking conventional osteoporosis medication end up with uterine cancer. Should we ban this medication?