> I’m arguing that no level of introduced “deterrent” fatality risk is an acceptable trade off for preventing a crime that itself isn’t punishable by death
All deterrents have a non-zero chance of causing death. People die in prisons, catch fatal viruses in court, etc. Indeed, even bitterants can cause allergic reactions, and so definitely have a non-zero probability of causing death.
> People die in prisons, catch fatal viruses in court, etc.
Prisons and courts aren’t designed to kill. Methylated spirits are. This is very simple concept you seem to be struggling with, governments shouldn’t seek to kill their citizens, or introduce deterrents that operate entirely on the principle of making people fear for their lives if they fail to comply with the law.
A bitterent that can cause allergic reactions (and most substances can!) is on a completely different scale to something that is an actual poison and consuming a small amount can cause permanent damage/kill you, regardless of your immune system's sensitivity.
All deterrents have a non-zero chance of causing death. People die in prisons, catch fatal viruses in court, etc. Indeed, even bitterants can cause allergic reactions, and so definitely have a non-zero probability of causing death.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6571374/
Since you reject this idea, there is no point in us discussing further.