I'm guessing hanging and the guillotine were a lot cheaper, not that I'm advocating that, although I'm not sure giving someone a lethal injection is that much better. — Marchesk

Okay, so it doesn't have to be expensive, because there are completely unrealistic alternative options which you guess were a lot cheaper, and which you don't even advocate. (Well, actually, I was quite shocked to discover that there were three hangings in Washington between 1993 and 1994, but that's only one state, and besides those three cases, there hasn't been a hanging in the US since 1965. As for the guillotine, that has apparently been used only once in the US, and that was in the 1800s).

Okay, so it doesn't have to be expensive, because there are completely unrealistic alternative options which you guess were a lot cheaper, — Sapientia

Those options weren't always unrealistic. Do you mean in contemporary society? That we're not just going to take the guilty from the court room to the platform for a quick, speedy and cheap death?

Sure, there is a legal process. I'm saying the legal process is what ends up costing so much, and this could be shortened if the requirement for the death penalty was exceedingly strict so that we weren't worried about them being found innocent later.

I'm not sure the quick & speedy death isn't more humane than drawing it out for years in solitary confinement while giving the prisoner some false hope their case will be overturned or the state won't go through with it.

Those options weren't always unrealistic. Do you mean in contemporary society? — Marchesk

Of course, this is a discussion about the death penalty in contemporary American society. I'm not talking about Colonial America, the Wild West or the Antebellum.