Actually, apparently it costs more to execute a guy than to have him in prison for life. For one thing, people often spend a decade or two on death row anyway. And then there are the huge legal costs to go through one appeal after the other.
When I think of deeply evil people, my sincerest wish for them is a LOO-O-ONG life. Hopefully way past their nineties. And hopefully spending the last four or five decades or so of it completely enfeebled, but still mentally with it so that they know what is happening to them. And then spending two or three years on their backs in intensive care, as one cancer after the other takes hold of them and is then fought off again, in the end requiring more and more of their bits and pieces to be amputated. And then emphysema. And so on and so forth.
Modern medicine can be worse torture than execution...
The flaw in this argument is that the lawyers who make numerous appeals are the same ones who make this argument, so it's kind of a self -fulfilling prophecy.
Let me explain.
An appellate lawyer sees a legal issue from the trial that was decided unfavorably to his client. The process is that he (or she) makes a legal motion for mistrial or dismissal, which the trial judge denies. The lawyer then goes to the state appellate court where the issue is argued. If the decision is unfavorable to either side, it will go to the state high court. Unfavorable decision for the accused. Then to the US Supreme Court.
The next step is the federal district court for the jurisdiction of the trial court, then to the US court of appeals for the circuit of the trial court. Then the Supreme Court of the US once more.,
The issue finally being settled once and for all, the lawyer for the accused takes another legal issue and the whole process is repeated and then another issue,
ad nauseum. What these appellate lawyers are trying to do is make it as expensive as possible so they can make this argument.
Please note that they are not doing this for personal profit, they are doing it because they want to see the death penalty done away with and this is one way to do it; by making it as expensive as possible. In short it is not greed that motivates these lawyers; it is idealism.
But even at this point the prisoner's legal options are not exhausted, for once the courts have made their final decision, the executive authority can be approached. This could be the state governors or the President of the US. A commutation can still be had, but quite often, this approach fails.
The law then takes it's course.
Strangely enough, the issue is often not decided on whether the accused is factually guilty; in the overwhelming majority of the cases, they are, but whether certain things should have been admissible as evidence. The accused may argue, for example, that a key piece of evidence should not have been allowed. They might argue that the weapon the accused used to kill with was improperly allowed or a confession was illegally obtained. Police in this country (and presumably the UK as well) don't often make this kind of legal error; they are too careful. And they are getting better about following the legal guidelines.
With these procedures and protections for the accused in place, miscarriages of justice sometime do happen, but they are not commonplace. Such cases as Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans in the UK come to mind and some question the guilt of these two men.
Another case where many people thought was an innocent man hanged was the A6 killer James Hanratty, but I understand that evidence has since come to light confirming his guilt.
Still and all we must be careful, as one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is that it is irrevocable.
'Oops!!' somehow doesn't cut it if an error is made.