I hate to have to point out the obvious.

But, apparently, somebody needs to in this case.

Granted, death penalty cases are far more expensive to prosecute. However, they're far less expensive in the long run: dead men and women don't eat, take up beds, require medical care, or take up any other government services.

A good friend of mine suggested that I was a bit of a hypocrite for being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. I disagree. I'm anti-abortion because it wasn't the baby's choice to be conceived without the mother's actions, if not permission. A baby is innocent. A murderer is not.

And caring for a murderer for the rest of their natural lives costs more than I want my taxes to pay for. Releasing them early costs too much, too--in the risk that they'll re-offend. Therefore, the most economical and moral choice is to make sure that a) they cannot kill again, and b) that they don't take resources needed by the less guilty.