No political issue has been subjected to the ups and downs of the public opinion roller coaster ride more than capital punishment.

Banned and brought back again several times throughout American history, the death penalty is now at the forefront of the political scene. Many politicians, who are keeping in line with their pledges to get tough on crime and take back America's streets, are moving to ease the process with which criminals are executed.

Although Pennsylvania is one of 37 states to have a death penalty, no one has been executed in the commonwealth since 1962. With 168 inmates currently on death row, the signing of death warrants was the primary issue in last November's election for governor.

Gov. Tom Ridge, whose special legislative session for crime got underway last week, has pledged to consider signing warrants for every inmate currently on death row and has said he will sign a bill that will require the governor to sign new death warrants within 90 days of its issuance.

However, the apparent overwhelming support for the death penalty from politicians and the voting public has met with some minimal, yet staunch opposition.

For the most part, politicians claim that a more efficient death penalty will please citizens by deterring violent crime. But many academicians and opponents of capital punishment say the public is misinformed and the death penalty is not a practical solution to solving America's criminal problems.

And while politicians are likely to succeed in their quest to approve a barrage of lethal injections in Pennsylvania, the issue of the practicality of a death sentence will continue to fester.

Academicians will argue for pragmatism and try to educate the public. Politicians will shrug them off as idealists and champion their approval of executions as battles won in the war against crime. And academicians will accuse politicians of having their ears to the ground and refusing to accept the facts.

Only time will tell who will get the upper hand.

-- -- --

Academicians who specialize in the study of criminology are by and large, opposed to the death penalty if for no other reason than that of practicality. Analysts point to several reasons why the death penalty is not a proper solution to crime in America.

A first factor is cost. Statistics released by the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C. report that all capital cases in the country cost approximately $500 million more than murder cases with a sentence of life imprisonment.

Phoebe Ellsworth, professor of psychology and law at the University of Michigan, said there are various reasons why executing a criminal costs so much more than putting another body in prison.

The legal processes add up to extremely high costs, Ellsworth said, as jury selection and required appeals create a long procedure through the court system. Another added cost is the necessity to create specialized maximum security prisons for death row inmates, she said.

Another factor academicians use to justify opposition to the death penalty is an inherent racism.

Kica Matos, research director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund's Capital Punishment Project, said 85 percent of the people executed since the late 1970s have had white victims.

"The lesson we have learned is that the life of a white person is much more valuable than a person of color," Matos said.

Perhaps the most controversial factor academicians use to voice opposition to capital punishment is the lack of any definite deterrent effect.

Ellsworth said there is no definitive evidence that a state's use of capital punishment deters violent crime.

"In general it's like a Loch Ness Monster," she said. "People have been looking for a deterrent effect, but they haven't found one yet."

Robert Dunham, executive director of the Pennsylvania Capital Case Resource Center, said to expect the death penalty to be a deterrent is to misinterpret the psychology of violent criminals.

"People who say the death penalty is a deterrent make an assumption that people's actions are based on rational reflection on consequences," Dunham said. This assumption does not accurately represent a person who is mentally ill and cannot reflect on consequences, he said.

Many of the people on death row are mentally ill, suffer from some neuro-psychological disorder or were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they committed their murders, Dunham said.

"The people who are on death row tend to not be able to make rational judgments as to the consequences of their actions," he said. "These are people who have diminished cognitive ability."

In some cases the death penalty has not only failed to deter crime, but has actually produced an increase in murder rates.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said although this "brutalization theory" on captial punishment has never been proved true, some states -- such as Oklahoma -- have seen evidence of its existence.

The theory assumes that people who murder are following an example set by the state.

"If the state says it's all right to kill certain individuals for what they have done, the message goes out," Dieter said, "that it's all right to kill."

-- -- --

Despite the problems that academicians see with the death penalty, politicians remain adamant in their attempts to increase the efficiency of the execution apparatus.

Tim Reeves, Ridge's press secretary, said Ridge is critical of the fact that Pennsylvania has close to 170 death row inmates and no one has been executed in the state since 1962.

Ridge believes it is pointless to have a death penalty statute without an actual death penalty, he said.

In the first weeks of his administration, Ridge plans to thoroughly review the cases of current death row inmates and sign them more rapidly than past governors, Reeves said.

"He's not going to sign warrants so quickly that the system won't be able to deal with it," he said.

Instead Ridge plans to make good on his philosophy that juries should be the ultimate decision makers in sentencing a criminal to die.

"The Governor believes that if 12 Pennsylvanians can make that agonizing decision," Reeves said. "It is not his place to become a super jury and circumvent that decision."

Philosophically, he said, Ridge believes that the punishment should always fit the crime.

"The bottom line for him is the notion of justice," he said.

As for the death penalty acting as a deterrent of crime in Pennsylvania, Reeves said there is no possible way to judge its effect.

"The question of whether or not Pennsylvania's death penalty is a deterrent is moot," he said. "It cannot be a deterrent if it's not enacted."

Other politicians have also voiced their support for the death penalty in Pennsylvania.

State Sen. J. Doyle Corman, R-Centre, said he supports capital punishment and believes that it deters violent crime.

"I think it's an unfortunate thing in society," Corman said. But it is the only viable punishment for people who are like animals and value human life so lowly, he said.

Corman said he would also like to see the government cut down on the amount of appeals that death row inmates may file.

"It sounds rather harsh, but I think that's the only way it is a deterrent," he said.

As for those who do not agree that the death penalty can be a deterrent, Corman said they are overlooking some important factors.

"There will always be those who will sight (death row inmates) to be the result of some sort of childhood defect," he said. So many people have overcome those problems to become good people, he said.

"If you do something bad you should pay the price," he said.

Support for the death penalty goes across partisan lines as state Rep. Ruth Rudy, D-Centre, also supports the death penalty.

Although Rudy said she hopes that the threat of capital punishment would deter people from murdering, she said it is tough to tell how successful it will be.

"I think it would be an impossible task to tell whether it is a deterrent here in Pennsylvania since it's been so long since anyone has been put to death," Rudy said.

-- -- --

In any discussion of the death penalty there is always the question of why the political view on the issue is so different from the academic perspective.

Rosemary Gido, University senior lecturer of administration of justice, said a theoretical cycle called "severity, softening, severity" best explains this discrepancy.

The first part of this cycle illustrates that state legislatures typically take a hard-line approach to crime.

Punishment policies such as the death penalty and the "three strikes and you're out" measure are examples of a legislature's severe attitude toward crime, Gido said.

Once legislatures enact those policies, Gido said many judges and district attorneys often soften the severity of the punishment by overturning death sentences or allowing plea bargains.

The next step of the cycle occurs when the public becomes disenchanted with the soft approach to crime.

"Given the climate of the time, the public and the media will sometimes start a drumbeat," Gido said. The public often sees the media's interpretation of the softening effect and votes for legislators who are willing to restart the cycle and enact more severe laws, she said.

As for now, politicians seem to have the upper hand in influencing the public's views.

Gido said academicians need to make the effort to participate more in testimony and education.

"Academicians, quite frankly, we're not as influential as we think we are," she said.