GFADP

The question is not whether he deserves execution (he does), but whether we should execute him (we shouldn't). In the USA, executing people does not reduce crime, protect people (at least if incarcerated in more protective prisons), or save money compared to long term imprisonment. Executing people hardens us as a society to others. All systems of capital punishment there are systems to protect the executioner from the deed, showing the recognition of how such acts are bad for them as human beings, even when they agree in principle it's moral. In the US, the evidence & ethics are against having any executions.

The death penalty could absolutely save money and be a strong deterrent if the penalty was carried out shortly after conviction instead of keeping them on death row for decades while they file endless appeals. Executing someone is cheap and obviously more cost efficient than providing them meals and housing for their entire life. All you’re doing here is making an argument for carrying out the death penalty more quickly and efficiently. And I agree. You also aren’t addressing the number one reason for the death penalty, which has nothing to do with cost or even deterrence. The primary reason is justice. Justice is giving to a person what they are due. A man who brutally murders a young girl is due the ultimate penalty. We should execute child killers because execution is the most proper and right and just response to such a crime. Keeping such a person alive and forcing society to feed and house and clothe them until their natural death is unjust, improper. He deserves to die. Even you admit this. And so he should. It’s really that simple.