First, and most personally, the article quotes me out of context, and very badly so. It quotes a statement I made, "That's not the way a democracy is supposed to work," without telling the reader what "that" refers to. "That" was the action of the Connecticut Legislature passing a repeal bill when the vast majority of the people of that state oppose repeal. The way the quote follows another quote about the substantive decision on the repeal v. reform question makes it sound like I am saying that decision is not a proper subject for the democratic process, which would be absurd.
There are other errors and significant omissions in the article. The article cites "a comprehensive 2011 study [on costs] by Loyola Law School." Loyola has not done a study. There is an article by federal judge Arthur Alarcon and his career law clerk, Paula Mitchell (mostly by Mitchell and not much by Alarcon, I suspect). Mitchell happens to be an adjunct professor at Loyola, meaning she teaches a course or two on the side, but that does not transform the article into a Loyola Law School study. Whether this study is "comprehensive" or deeply flawed is a matter of opinion.
The article cites cost studies by opponents of the death penalty, but it does not mention other studies or criticisms of the studies it does cite. The issue is nowhere near so clear-cut.
The article very prominently features one mother of a murder victim who is opposed to the death penalty. It does not mention others who very much support it.