A FELLOW CRIMINOLOGIST EXPANDS UPON MATTICK'S WORK TO ARGUE THAT IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO REINTRODUCE THE DEATH PENALTY IN THIS COUNTRY, NOT BECAUSE OF THE SUFFERING IT CAUSES THE EXECUTED, BUT BECAUSE OF ITS UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY. ONE OF THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS ITS ALLEGED DETERRENT EFFECT OR ITS ABILITY TO SAVE THE LIVES OF POTENTIAL CRIME VICTIMS. HOWEVER, SUCH AN EFFECT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE IN THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING AND SHIFTING POSITIONS TAKEN BY THE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT DRAFTING CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCEPTABLE LEGISLATION CONDONING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND GIVING IT IMPLEMENTATION THAT WILL COVER MORE THAN A FEW MURDERERS IS IMPOSSIBLE. FURTHERMORE, SINCE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ADVOCATES HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO SHOW THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRES THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY, ITS USE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. NOR CAN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BE JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS EFFECTIVE IN CONTROLLING CRIME. IN FACT THE ADVOCACY OF SUCH A POLICY DISTRACTS FROM VITALLY NEEDED EFFORTS TO REDUCE VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY. FINALLY THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD RESULT IN AN UNSEEMLY MEDIA CIRCUS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP)