I think Peter Sutcliffe - in common with almost all individuals incarcerated for a life term - with the exception of Ian Brady - must contemplate the possibility of freedom, however an unlikely scenario that may be.
For that reason, he is exercising his legal rights, as he is entitled so to do.
I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who are prepared to support a death penalty on the basis that keeping some criminals alive is a 'waste of tax payers' money'.
Are we really that callous as a society that we decide that a person's life is not worth preserving because of the financial cost? If you extend that argument, you run the risk of sliding down a seriously nasty slippery slope - don't keep old people in hpsital because it 'drains the NHS budget'. Don't put criminals in prison, let 'the people' have their 'justice' because it saves on the cost of trials.
Really people, is this the sort of society we want to live in?
Punishment by incarceration is just that - punishment by law. It may not be perfect, but the idea that people are to be executed to 'save money' leaves me cold.