That is one terrible argument. How in the world is the food that a person on trial happens to eat before the jury comes to a decision relevant? Their guilt isn't proven, so they have the right to be fed and treated well until (if) proven so. Then you make fun of my argument with sarcasm but haven't actually made a point.
The point he was making (and admirably at that) was that the "it is so expensive to keep a criminal in prison forever, the death penalty is much less burdensome on taxpayers" logic doesn't actually hold that much water, because those sentenced to death are allowed a great number of appeals (for which there are costs) and the entire time they are on death row (often years) they are still being housed, fed, and recieving the same costly things that someone in prison for life gets -on top of- the costs from the DAs office in having to go through all of the lengthy appeals.