Although there are many reasons why it should be banned, some of the main concerns are: it is very expensive, it is racist and unfair, prisoners lose the will to live and can see death as a way out of punishment and, finally, there have been people who have been executed only to later discover they were innocent. In the United States, the death penalty has always been a very controversial topic. Although many states have deemed it unconstitutional, it is still in use today. However, capital punishment is an outdated practice that should be banned. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay The first reason against the death penalty discussed in this research paper is that life in prison is a better option because it is less expensive. Capital punishment is very expensive and many people don't know how much time and money death row inmates spend. In some states, more money is spent on death row inmates than they spend. A study conducted in 2011 shows that California has spent $1 billion on the costs of incarcerating death row inmates since 1978, or an average of $30.3 million per year on death row alone. Not to mention the cost for security guards is $90,000 per inmate per year; California has 747 death row inmates, which is about $67.2 million a year just for security. Considering that life without parole amounts to about $50,000 per year per inmate, it's not even remotely comparable to capital punishment. The least expensive death penalty costs $1.1 million more than the most expensive life sentence without parole. That's a lot more money that could be put towards something else, which has a bigger effect on society. There is also a large amount of money earmarked for appeals. Not only are appeals expensive, but they also take a long time to process. The death penalty is about 20 times more expensive than life imprisonment. Second, the death penalty is a racist and unjust practice. Capital punishment is the harshest sentence anyone can receive, so it should be assessed fairly by the jury, but unfortunately this is not the case. The race of the defendant is not what the jury pays attention to, they pay more attention to the race of the victim. It shouldn't matter what race the victim is: they were wrongly attacked, killed, or injured, and they should get justice for what was done. There have been many cases where the same crime was committed but there were different sentences for the defendants. In one case the first victim was a white male and the second an African American male, both murdered during a robbery, but the defendant who killed the white male received a harsher sentence than the man who committed the same crime, but against an African American male. Both defendants were white males in their thirties. If it's unjust and racist, why should it be constitutional? Statistics show that in Florida as of January 1, 2018, 75.5% of victims whose perpetrator was executed were white. They also show that only 15.4% of the 2,196 victims whose attacker was executed were African Americans, or just 338 compared to the 1,659 white victims. It is unfair to have such a harsh sentence full of bias, there should never be any inconsistencies in something that takes another person's life. Furthermore, many people sentenced to death spend years in prison appealing their conviction and sentence, fighting to get life sentences, but once life without parole is granted, inmates regret having..