I have a strong feeling that you can mostly tell from the details of the crime itself, whether a given murderer would go on to be a serial killer, or whether this was just "a one-time thing."

It makes sense to me that people are desperate to put away serial killers (because the alternative is more deaths), insisting that the case must be pursued until someone is put away for the crime.

But it doesn't make sense to me that people would rather an innocent person rot in prison with nonzero probability, than a killer who will likely never kill again go free. I feel there should be a very high standard of evidence to convict in cases where there's no likelihood of continued societal harm coming from the guilty party, whoever they are.

(Yes, from an anthropological viewpoint, prison exists not just for rehabilitation, but also partially because people just want revenge... but the whole point of centralizing and structuring this mechanism for societal vengeance, is to prevent that vengeance from being applied to the wrong person!)

Only if you wish to persist a violent system aiming to wreck lives. We could instead try to help everyone involved heal from the event(s) and initiate processes to uncover systemic issues leading to them. I'd rather the latter.

I'm just pointing out that wrongful convictions are a separate issue from the practices and pervasiveness of imprisonment.

I think this makes sense for a lot of crimes, but not murder. If you take someone's life, you should be prepared to spend a long time in prison. That's a reasonable punishment for the crime.

This relates to a fundamental question of what the criminal justice system is for: Punishment, deterrent, undoing wrongs, etc.

I predict that I’m in the minority in believing what I’m about to say: In the unlikely event that it turned out the best way of minimising homicide was to promise every single convict £1 million and a 12 hour episode television show in their name, if that actually minimised homicide, I’d be in favour of that response to it. I will of course freely admit that the reason I can say something so shocking is because I don’t know anyone who’s been murdered.

I care about minimising the aggregate rate of all homicide, not punishment for it’s own sake.

Even if it did lower the aggregate homicide rate, would you want to live in a society where murdering someone was rewarded with £1 million and a tv show? I don't think the homicide rate is the only metric one can use to judge quality of life.

I understand that other people don’t think like me. For me this would be little different to the current status quo with gory horror films, which I abhor almost vitriolically.

I don't think the person you replied to is advocating for punishment at all.