The argument revolving capital punishment is one that people have been debating over for many years. While the fundamental concept of justice may resonate universally, opinions diverge widely on the appropriate balance and severity of its consequences. Self-evidently, the death penalty poses many dilemmas, often being regarded as a violation of basic human-rights. This fact leads many to ask: does the death penalty truly serve its purpose? Most argue that its continued existence goes against the very values that our judicial system is supposed to protect. Thus, it's time to give the death penalty some serious thought in order to move toward a society that is fairer and more just. 
One of the main reasons why so many countries in the world have banned the death penalty is due to the extreme amount of money needed to carry out such a punishment. In fact, the money needed for capital punishment is way less than all the expenses of a system utilizing life without parole. Longer trials, many appeals, and the relative frequency of executions are the reasons behind this expense. Most cases in which criminal punishment is sought don’t end up with the culprit being executed. Even when the death penalty is imposed, very often it is then overturned in the courts. The usual conclusion of the process includes the criminal getting a life sentence, but with a higher cost, due to the death penalty procedure that led up to that point. This suggests the death penalty is an extremely expensive and inefficient process in terms of both money and time.  
Unfortunately, there have been many cases in which an innocent person was blamed for a crime and had to unjustly suffer from the consequences of another person. In some cases, this consequence has been the death penalty. This sad reality shows a deep inequity in the country’s legal system. The idea of an innocent person experiencing the worst possible form of punishment incites anger and sorrow in many. The accounts of those unlucky enough to be innocently convicted reflect the flaws in the use of the death penalty. A very recent occurrence of this happened to a man named Nathaniel Woods. On March 5th, 2020, Nathaniel Woods was executed after being wrongfully accused of the killing of three Birmingham officers. He was unarmed at the time and was incorrectly convicted for purposefully luring the officers to their death. This is one of the many cases in which a person had to lose their life due to the flaws of the judicial system. If a death penalty wasn’t carried out, the man would eventually be found not guilty and would be excused of his sentence. But that cannot happen if the suspect has been executed, proving to be yet another flaw in using capital punishment.  
One may argue that capital punishment is fair and a form of justice for the family of a loved one who has been murdered. While capital punishment may be satisfactory for the victim’s loved ones, it has been proven to not be a good deterrent of crime in entirety. By implementing a moratorium, which is a temporary suspension of a law, a synthetic control assessment revealed no evidence of a deterrent impact related to death penalty statutes. The homicide rates did not significantly decrease as a result of the moratoriums, therefore showing that the death penalty did not have a significant effect on crime. Although the study takes account only 4 states, the results are important to take into considerations for future policy makers, as they show the ineffectiveness of the death penalty. 
In conclusion, the death penalty is an extremely inefficient form of punishment. The process that leads up to the execution is highly likely to fail, leading to an extreme waste of effort and resources. Additionally, the length of the procedure and the number of permits needed contribute to the high cost. The process is also very risky. Although it happens very rarely, there is a chance that the suspect is in truth an innocent person, causing harm to the state, the family of the civilian, and potentially sparking protests. To top it off, there is no evidence revealing that the death penalty deters crime. This means that states which use capital punishment harm the lives of innocent and spend great amounts of money, for little to no effect to crime in entirety.