With the entire state focused on the heated debate over gay marriage, many Massachusetts residents seem to have forgotten about another item on Gov. Mitt Romney’s agenda: the reinstatement of the death penalty. Last September, Romney organized a commission of 11 forensic experts, lawyers, judges and academics to decide if it’s possible to set up a system of capital punishment that could ensure the protection of all innocent people against unlawful execution. The panel’s report is due this spring.

The governor wants to apply capital punishment to those found guilty of what he considers to be the most heinous of crimes – a list that includes terrorist acts and the murder of police officers. He believes that in some circumstances, the death penalty is the only way to ensure that justice is served. He also claims that it can “save a life or two.”

While it is commendable that Romney is not entirely blind to the problems of the justice system, it is unfortunate that he assumes the death penalty prevents homicide; an abundance of evidence refutes such a claim. Homicide rates in the United States over the past 30 years do not show a correlation between the re-establishment of the death penalty and a decrease in the murder rate.

Statistics released by the U.S. Department of Justice show that homicide rates rose in the early-1980s, more than five years after the reinstatement of capital punishment. In the mid-1980s, the murder rate declined, but in the early-1990s it again began to increase. In other words, there has been no steady reduction in the murder rate since the re-institution of the death penalty. The periodical declines that did occur are related to other variables such as economic growth and aggressive policing.

Even if the death penalty is a deterrent (which it’s not), there is no reliable way to predict which convicted murderers will become repeat offenders. One way to prevent all recidivism is to execute all convicted murders – a barbaric policy that would further exacerbate current problems. A more effective and far more humane solution would be one that mandates life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. That is the only way to prevent all innocent people from unlawful execution.

Another problem with capital punishment is that it reflects considerable racial bias. Over the past century, blacks have often been executed for what were considered to be less-than-capital offenses for whites (i.e. rape and burglary). Between 1930 and 1976, 455 men were executed for rape, 90 percent of whom were black.

In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report on its review of empirical studies on racism and the death penalty. A synthesis of the 28 studies demonstrated “a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing and imposition of the death penalty.” Studies conducted by numerous states came to the same conclusions. Most recently, in January of this year, University of Maryland researchers found that defendants are more likely to receive a death sentence if they have been convicted of killing a white person.

This is particularly harrowing if we consider that unlike life imprisonment, the death penalty is irrevocable. Some sociologists estimate that, since 1900, as many as four innocent people have been convicted of murder each year. Since 1973, 107 prisoners have been released from death row after evidence cleared them. Granted, DNA testing has been an invaluable aid, but in some cases, mainly due to the nature of the crime, DNA tests are ineffective or simply can’t be used. Then of course there is the problem of human error: Last May, in Phoenix, police discovered that lab technicians had miscalculated DNA results in nine cases over the past three years. Romney’s desire to create an infallible system is a pipe dream; it might help, but it would not be fool-proof.

Worse still, death penalty sentences are far more expensive than those that mandate life imprisonment. When it comes to justice, cost should not be the primary issue at hand. But the fact is that many people wrongly assume that capital punishment is the cheaper option. In Maryland, for instance, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty between 1979 and 1984 demonstrated that a capital punishment case costs roughly 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence. State officials in Florida have estimated that the true cost of each execution is six times the cost of life imprisonment. The fact is that prisoners are rarely executed in a timely manner. This is unavoidable given the procedural safeguards required by the courts in capital cases. The death penalty burdens all parties involved and thus is counterproductive to the control and prevention of violent crime. Indeed, the resources of the justice system would be better spent on crime fighting methods that have been proven to reduce homicide.

In saying all of this, I am by no means sympathizing with convicted murders. Murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. Killers should not be permitted to roam freely among law-abiding members of our society. Yet as atrocious as some crimes may be, we as Americans must silence the furies inside ourselves and carry out justice in accordance with reason and human dignity. The death penalty is a flawed and ineffective institution. Citizens and lawmakers in Massachusetts should continue to take action and prevent its re-instatement.