No but 3 rights make a left.
I used to be a proponent of the death penalty. That actually changed after finding Libertarian sites and ultimately here. 3 main reasons.
1 I (and many other proponents) wanted revenge not justice.
2 Killing someone after they are caught and incarcerated is incompatible with the NAP.
3 After seeing how many people the Innocence Project has cleared from death row I am sure there are more innocent people on Death Row. If it is wrong to kill a murderer it is abhorrent to kill an innocent.
Even though I wanted to discuss how preferences are subjective and it is impossible to claim that all victims are better off having money, I'll respond to your points.
1. I honestly don't know the difference between "justice" and "revenge." Prison seems really "revengey" to me too. So does putting people on an island and letting them sort out their differences Bear Grills Style.
2. I can understand how killing isn't compatible with the NAP only if you are a pacifist. If killing isn't compatible with the NAP, how is putting someone in jail compatible, or forcibly taking property from an aggressor to give to a victim?
I think there are two main libertarian theories of justice. One is pacifism. No one EVER has the right to use force against anyone else for any reason. I remember Robert Lefevre, an outstanding libertarian, would say things like, "I have no more right to cut rope that I'm being tied with than he has a right to tie me up."
The second group of legal theory is that once you violate the property rights of someone else, you forfeit some of your property rights. So if a person is raping someone, it is within the NAP to use force against them....even after the fact. Some libertarians that subscribe to this basic theory are Judge Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Robert Murphy, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella,........though Robert Murphy is a pacifist and claims that he would never want to use force even though it would be justified.
3. This one drives me nuts. How it is acceptable to put an innocent person in jail for the rest of their life but its not ok to kill them.
"Because we can let an innocent person go." What!? Do you really think that its OK to ENSLAVE innocent people because there is less than a 1% chance they could be set free? Huh? How many innocent people have rotted in prisons until they were DEAD and never got let go?
To me, there is no qualitative difference between killing innocent people and enslaving them for the rest of their lives. None. It is the difference of arguing for an income tax vs a sales tax. Yes, I find one slightly preferable, but they both suck giant horse dick and are incompatible with the NAP.