Two out of the four Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates would like to turn back the clock more than 50 years to reinstate the death penalty in the commonwealth.

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and Christi Mihos have both expressed an interest in bringing back the long-gone death penalty to one of the most liberal states in the country.

Candidates Deval Patrick and Grace Ross stand firmly against the death penalty on moral, ethical and financial grounds.

On Healey’s website, she explains that, if elected she “would reinstate the death penalty for those convicted of killing a law enforcement officer.” Mihos has also taken a similar stance.

While we think criminals who commit heinous crimes — such as killing police officers — should receive sentences to match their crime, reinstating the death penalty would not be a good choice for the state.

The death penalty is a morally unjust and cruel punishment no matter how terrible the crime committed is. It is a savage act that snuffs another human’s life and makes murderers of the lawyers and judges trying to protect us.

Since Massachusetts’ first execution in 1650, there have only been about 345 subsequent executions – 26 for witchcraft – according to the No Death Penalty in Massachusetts website. If Massachusetts has so infrequently used the death penalty in the past, what use will it have for it in the future?

While some may think that it would be cheaper to simply pull the switch, the snails-pace appeals process for convicted inmates is extremely costly. It would actually cost taxpayers less money to have horrible criminals rot in prison.

According to a 2001 National Bureau of Economic Research report, the high cost of execution actually takes money away from other areas of improvement such as law enforcement and highway repair. A resurrected death penalty would only pile more bills on the debt-burdened state.

Unfortunately, as recently as April 28, 2005, Governor Mitt Romney has filed legislation asking to reinstate the death penalty — calling it a model for the nation.

But any bill that would condone the murder of another person is a model for disaster.

Internationally, “94 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.” according to a 2005 Amnesty International report. Massachusetts should continue to set an example for the country – and the rest of the world — not by reinstating capital punishment, but by working to abolish it forever.

In a 2005 press release, Romney asks that prosecutors be able “to seek the death penalty in cases that include terrorism, the assassination of law enforcement officials and multiple killings. The legislation is the first of its kind in the nation in that it calls for corroborating scientific evidence, multiple layers of review and a new ‘no doubt’ standard of proof.”

But, on many levels, his request is illogical.

Seeking the death penalty for terrorists would be giving them what they want -martyrdom. The last thing we should want is to have our terrorists glorified in the eyes of our enemies, fueling greater hatred against the country.

Also Romney calls for corroborating scientific evidence and a ‘no doubt’ standard of proof, but there is never any way to be completely certain of someone’s guilt. And once a death penalty is carried out, it cannot be reversed.

We implore that – no matter who wins in November – the death penalty stay dead in Massachusetts.