In order to have a sensible debate (or any debate), we have to have language. In order to have language, words have to have communally accepted meaning.
Whether they do any more has been cast into doubt by the latest academic shake-and-jive on the death penalty, to wit, a piece
titled, "Death in Prison: The Right Death Penalty Compromise." The "compromise" is -- get this -- that the death penalty would be abolished, and the most severe sentence would be, or at least would be called, "Death in Prison." DIP would be, in every functional detail, identical to the current sentence of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP), in which, if memory serves, the inmate dies in prison.
Honest. The DIP proposal, by Professor Russell Covey of Georgia State, takes the view that it is a "compromise" to adopt the specific goal abolitionists have been pushing for years as a way to vanquish their opponents and eliminate the death penalty.
Still, all is not lost. Retentionists should counter with a "compromise" of life without parole, only the life will be shortened by state intervention. If abolitionists want a game in which language is stripped of meaning, we can play too.