The real reason to end the death penalty

> The state should not have the power over the life of a person.

Then it can't do war and can't defend its existence as a state unless it's somehow a dependent state of some other state that does have power over the life of a person. Like some small Pacific island that's protected by more militarily well equipped allies.

>Hold a monthly lottery of the population, ...

The point you're making is that living in society each day is a ticket in lottery where we could be falsely accused of a crime, falsely convicted, and unjustly punished. That's horrific all around, a death penalty is a factor but not even the biggest. On the contrary, if we need a death penality to make someone like your audience care about that horror of punishing innocent people then perhaps there is a beneficial purpose? Maybe executions make people care about bad things done in their name in the name of justice?

>Police dropped evidence into your pocket? Try them for attempted murder.

Yes, naturally. Some archaic pockets of government do this, sort of! What comes to mind is a specific public officer in my state who is personally responsible by law for breaches of privacy in her office. Consequences like that focus the mind! So much so, in fact, that those consequences come to dominate the public officer's thinking. I don't disagree, but forget 'defund the police'-- you're going to need a lot more police to enforce the modern criminal code at the current level of enforcement if police are threatened with death for misplacing their notes , memories and paperwork.

>At your conviction lottery is held of the population and winner is your executioner.

Again, the result here would be that some people would be assigned an executioner who would show them mercy. This too has analogues in our modern systems. In some parts of the world the victim's family can stop an execution if they feel the victim has been adequately avenged-- not a bad result! In the US context governors-- arguably the people responsible for these killings-- can and frequently do commute sentences out of compassion or lack of clarity about the crime.

There's some variation inside the US. Michigan abolished the death penalty for all crimes other than treason in 1847 (It was abolished for treason in 1967, with no one having been executed).

It might not go that bad. But I suspect that as medical imaging hardware becomes better, we'll eventually face a crisis point: we'll be forced to re-evaluate most of what we call "character traits" and reclassify them as neurochemistry quirks. This is an important distinction, because as a society, we tend to hold people responsible for their character, but not for bugs in their brain.

We can already see some of this today. Many people that would've been shunned by society in the past as "unstable" and "crazy", can be fixed by giving them lithium. We know not to fault a person for what's just a bug in their hardware. Similarly, many people that today are called "lazy" or "annoying", and blamed for their obviously flawed character, can be instantly fixed by low doses of stimulant medication. This is something most people didn't get a memo on yet.

I find it highly likely that most homicides are also driven by fixable neurochemistry quirks, and that we'll learn to identify and fix them at some point, and we'll be appalled at the ease with which we jumped to killing people for having them.

No? As far as I know, nipples are still "banned" on most US social media platforms, but only if they are female. Male nipples are fine. Then children are usually shielded from anything remotely sexual in both real-life and from media while violence seems to be fine even for the youngest.