We find ourselves at a place in history where human rights issues have never been more important. As we continue to push for social equality regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation, we often overlook something far more detrimental to society than any discrimination. We sentence criminals to death, despite a deep understanding that our criminal justice system is flawed and not working for the common good. The death penalty is inefficient, ineffective, fallaciously carried out and racially biased, and it is holding our country back from truly being the land of the free.

1. The death penalty is more costly than life without parole.

One of the most frequently used arguments in favor of the death penalty is the cost of punishing a criminal. Too often, we hear complaints of, “Why should I pay to keep this worthless criminal in jail? Just kill him, it’ll be cheaper." But is it actually cheaper? Former Orange County Judge Donald McCartin disagrees. With the nickname “The Hanging Judge of Orange County,” McCartin knows a thing or two about capital punishment, having sentenced nine men to death. McCartin notes the differences in costs of prosecuting a capital punishment case versus the cost of a non-capital case.

For starters, the Kansas Judicial Council found that “defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered." In addition to the cost of prosecuting and defending a capital punishment case, the time spent on appeals is almost 44 times more (on average) than the time spent on cases where life in prison is at stake. I could continue, but at the end of the day, who foots that bill? State and local governments have to cover these costs — and that is done through taxes. Of course, speeding up the appeals process is not an option, since we already aren't getting it right (more on that at point 3). The wheels of justice move slowly at the best of times, and especially when someone’s life is at stake.

2. The death penalty does not deter crime.

Yet another claim levied in favor of the death penalty is that it deters crime. I mean it's common sense, who would rape, murder or kidnap people if they know they will probably get put to death if they get caught? As logical as that may be, Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia Law School (and many other experts) disagree. Despite pouring over statistics and studies, Fagan admits, “We’re very hard pressed to find really strong evidence of deterrence."

Additionally, even with a global perspective, there is little evidence for capital punishment deterring crime. Take a look at Hong Kong (where the death penalty was abolished in 1993) and Singapore (where the death penalty is mandatory and administered within a year and a half for murder and many other crimes). Despite their drastically different policies, there is little difference in the homicide rates of the two countries.

The same outcome is present in another study comparing the amount of violence in states in the US with and without the death penalty.

While these studies do not prove without a doubt that there is no deterrent to crime, they also do not support the claim that the death penalty actually does much to deter crime. That alone should give us reason to pause and reconsider. Another potential point to consider would be the deterrent effects of life without parole as opposed to capital punishment. Due to a lack of comprehensive data studying, life without parole is not something researchers have the ability to research at this time, but it should be considered nonetheless.

3. We have executed innocent people.

No other point made in defense of the death penalty holds any water if the practice itself is not carried out flawlessly. It would be one thing if we executed the guilty individual 100 percent of the time (spoiler alert, we don’t), but it shocks me that people are OK with continuing to use a broken system. According to one study from the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, it is entirely possible that 4 percent of people who have received the death penalty are actually innocent. Additionally, it makes me wonder at the ignorance of those who suggest speeding up the appeals process in order to save on costs of carrying out the death sentence. If we can't get it right at this pace, what good does it do to speed it up? Regardless of whether you believe in “an eye for an eye” for the most heinous of crimes, we should be disgusted that anyone is subjected to living their life on death row until they possibly get executed, despite the fact that they did absolutely nothing wrong.

(As a disclaimer, it may appear as though I am not giving this section its fair coverage, but if I have to convince you that wrongly killing up to 4 percent of people who have been given the death penalty, then there are bigger issues you need to consider.)

4. The death penalty process is racially biased.

As much as we want to say that we are colorblind, the death penalty certainly is not. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, people of color have accounted for a disproportionate 43 percent of the total executions since 1976. What's more, 55 percent of those currently awaiting execution are also people of color.

Additionally, while only 50 percent of murder cases involve white victims, 80 percent of capital cases involve white victims. This imbalance implies that our system values white lives more than black lives, in that more homicides with white victims are taken to court for capital punishment. Further, as of October 2002, 12 white defendants have been executed for killing a black victim, while 178 black defendants have been executed for killing a white victim. Studies in individual states have found that many states traditionally sought the death penalty for black defendants, even when crimes were almost identical to white defendants who were not considered for the death penalty. Many states also attempted to remove black jurors from capital punishment cases. If our criminal justice system has such an obvious and strong racial bias, calling it “justice” would be laughable, even if people’s lives weren’t at stake.

In short, the death penalty being broken is a symptom of the larger fundamental issues that are far too prevalent in our criminal justice system. While we need to stop and examine all of our laws and how they are enforced, the death penalty takes first priority because once it’s done, it’s done. Arbitrarily throwing around the harshest of penalties under the guise of “justice” is immoral, and at the end of the day, entirely ineffective.

As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said that in a democracy, “few are guilty, but all are responsible." We have the obligation to speak out against the injustice that is being carried out “for our own good." Do your part! Contact your elected officials and demand that they do the right thing, and repeal the death penalty.