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.