In effect, you accused me of committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. You did so incorrectly. The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that some criminals should be released immediately, some criminals should be incarcerated for an indefinite time (while they are persuaded somehow not to offend again), and that some criminals must simply be killed, as they are certain to re-offend or cannot be trusted not to reoffend. Furthermore, the decision (release, incarcerate, kill) has nothing to do with the severity of the offense and everything to do with the probability of recidivism.
I don't accept that conclusion; I also don't accept your premise that punishment is forbidden. I have examined your line of reasoning and rejected it.
Is that clear enough for you?
Your statements about incarceration versus death are hard to follow.
You're clear about not rejecting punishment but you're not clear why (is double jeopardy OK with you, do you say that punishment is not double jeopardy, etc., etc.).
It's OK, man, don't worry about it. Have a good day.