If you in fact did kill multiple people then sure, but that is a tiny % of people who are locked up. But then, maybe. I think most would prefer life even in that situation.
At least it's usually a costly barbarity for the state, with no perverse incentives. Though I'd argue it's not a dichotomy, and a maximum sentence combined with risk assessments that can extend a sentence beyond the maximum is state of the art.
If you want to save taxpayer money, then you should be advocating for an end to the death penalty. Sentencing a person to death ends up costing significantly more than life imprisonment.
Sure, you could execute them the day after they're convicted. But that would greatly increase the number of people we let the state murder, not to mention the number of innocent people they'd be putting to death. Personally, that's not the type of society I want to be a part of.
Boy, if paying to keep people imprisoned upsets you, wait til you see how much we law abiding citizens have to pay when the state fucks up and locks up the wrong person.
Philly just paid nearly $10 million to some guy they'd wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 30 years.
If justice was about money it would be cheaper to just shoot anyone accused of being a pick pocket, heck the cop should just shoot the accuser twice to make sure his costly time isn't wasted again. Not to forget bill the families for the bullets.
As all government money is fungible from the perspective of the average citizen, and not all of it comes from taxing, you can't really say that "law abiding citizens" are "footing the bill". It's funny how this type of comment always comes into play when it comes to the rights of others. Not projecting this onto you specifically, but often times it comes across as "oh, we can't be fair to people because I have to pay for it! oh no!"