lthough both Al Gore and George W. Bush are strong supporters of the death penalty, the controversies associated with it could make the consequences of capital punishment one of the more interesting issues in this presidential election.
With the sharp increase in public awareness of DNA testing, which could truly determine whether many inmates on death row are guilty or innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, the political dynamics linked to the death penalty could create meaningful differences on this issue between the two candidates.
More importantly for Gore, who falls behind Bush in the polls when voters are asked who is tougher on crime, the issue of whether innocent people are put to death under capital punishment can be turned in his favor.
No doubt neither Gore nor any presidential candidate these days can afford to be portrayed as being against the death penalty, which is akin to being soft on crime in the eyes of most voters.
The last candidate to oppose the death penalty was Michael S. Dukakis, and that was one of the issues that worked against the Massachusetts governor in his unsuccessful bid for the White House against George Bush the elder.
With the latest polls showing that 73 percent of Americans favor the death penalty, it would almost certainly be the end of Gore's campaign if he switched his position.
Even if he endorsed the death penalty only for the most heinous murders, he still might be putting his ''tough on crime'' stance at risk. Of those polled, 38 percent say the death penalty should be applied only to the most brutal murders or to mass murders.
Yet there are related areas where the candidates can venture without being perceived as soft on the death penalty, and thus soft on crime. Both candidates, for example, support wider access to DNA testing for the accused or the convicted to reduce, if not eliminate, the chances of wrongful executions.
Bush recently gave a boost to the compassionate side of his theme of being a self-described ''compassionate conservative.'' He made a last-minute decision to stay a highly publicized execution to allow time to perform advanced DNA testing to determine whether the condemned man raped as well as murdered his victim. The rape conviction mandated the death penalty in this case.
This move did not soften Bush's support of the death penalty. He has said before and since that decision that he firmly believes that only the guilty have been executed after a fair trial, despite recent disclosures that some of the convicted received shoddy defenses.
This is an area where Gore could make a difference. A recently published 10-year study by Columbia University showed that two-thirds of all death sentences across the nation are overturned on appeal, mostly because of the provision of a poor defense or an overzealous prosecution. This study further heightens concern even among staunch death penalty supporters that the innocent can be executed.
Illinois Governor George Ryan brought that concern home earlier this year when he placed a moratorium on executions after new evidence cleared several inmates on death row in his state. Ryan, a Republican, made the move regardless of potential political consequences.
With overturned sentences, clearing of inmates, and the advanced science of DNA testing, there is an ever-increasing feeling among the populace that, despite their support of the death penalty, an innocent person may have been, or will be, wrongfully executed.
Some death penalty proponents argue that capital punishment is a deterrent, removing the condemned inmate from society, and that it should be retained for these reasons even if there is evidence that one of the executed might have been innocent.
But as both Gore and Bush know, the death penalty is not a deterrent, as Bush's own state of Texas clearly demonstrates. Texas has easily outnumbered other states in executions of convicted murderers, yet it also has the highest murder rate. The death penalty has neither stopped nor even slowed the murder rate in Texas. In fact, it has increased.
The pattern was essentially the same in other states, supporting the argument of opponents such as Amnesty International that capital punishment brutalizes our society and contributes to, rather than diminishes, the number of murders. As some self-confessed murderers have said, the death penalty was not on their minds when they were committing their crimes.
Of course, these arguments would persuade neither Gore nor Bush to change their stands. But if Gore proposes a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and, at the same time, calls for more expansive use of DNA testing on both accused killers and on death row inmates, that may turn out to be more palatable to the electorate than merely maintaining his one-note support of the death penalty.
In a recent news report, Gore indicated that he might consider a moratorium on federal executions if the problems with death penalty cases at the state level were also evident in federal cases. He added, however, that he did not believe there would be such a finding. Still, this is the direction Gore ought to take to show a more human side of his campaign image.
But he should not consider a moratorium on only federal executions. If he calls for such a moratorium during a period when DNA tests are being conducted, there is at least a possibility that a test will reveal a miscarriage of justice.
No voter could fault Bush for his last-minute stay of an execution. And no voter would fault Gore for demonstrating how a moratorium could save a wrongfully convicted person's life.
Robert A. Jordan is a Globe columnist.
