While there are many reasons why it should be banned, some major concerns are: it is very expensive, it is racist and unjust, Inmates lose their will to live and may view death as a way to escape their punishment, and finally, there have been people who were executed only to find out later that they were innocent. In the United States, the death penalty has always been a very controversial subject. Although many states have deemed it unconstitutional, it is still used 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 However, capital punishment is an outdated practice that should be banned.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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the 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 costly. Capital punishment is very expensive, and many people do not know how much time and money is spent on those on death row. There is more money spent on death row inmates in some states than they spend. A 2011 study shows that California has spent $1 billion on the cost of incarcerating death row inmates since 1978, an average of $30.3 million per year on hallway incarceration alone. of death. Not to mention that the cost of security guards is $90,000 per year per inmate; California has 747 inmates on death row, which amounts to about $67.2 million a year just for security. While life in prison without parole costs about $50,000 per year per inmate, it's not as much as the death penalty. The least expensive death sentence costs $1.1 million more than the most expensive case of life without parole. This represents a lot more money that could be spent on something else that would have a greater impact on society. Significant sums are also spent on appeals. Not only are appeals expensive, but they also take a long time to process. The death penalty costs around 20 times more than life in prison. Second, the death penalty is a racist and unjust practice. Capital punishment is the harshest punishment one can face, so it should be evaluated 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. No matter the victim's race, they were unjustly assaulted, murdered or injured and should get justice for what was done. There have been many cases where the same crime was committed but the accused received different sentences. In one case, the first victim was a white man and the second an African-American man, both murdered during a robbery, but the defendant who murdered the white man received a harsher sentence than l man who committed the same crime but against an African-American man. Both defendants were white men in their 30s. If it's unfair and racist, why should it be constitutional? Statistics show that in Florida, as of January 1, 2018, 75.5% of victims whose attackers were executed were white. They also show that only 15.4 percent of the 2,196 victims whose attackers were executed were African American, just 338 compared to the 1,659 white victims. It is unfair to have such a harsh and biased sentence, there should never be inconsistency in something that takes another's life. Then, many people sentenced to death spend years in prison..