Michael Kopetski: “I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and my good friends, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] and the…”

“I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and my good friends, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]. The Kopetski-Mfume-Serrano amendment would, quite simply, strip out all the death penalty provisions in H.R. 4092, and insert, in their place, life imprisonment. And, as there is no parole in the Federal system, our amendment requires life imprisonment without opportunity for parole as a substitute for death sentencing. Mr. Chairman, we have before us today one of the few instances where the Congress clearly legislates morality. Certainly, many of us are troubled by the death penalty on moral, and possibly, religious grounds. But more importantly, from my point of view, the Government-- especially the Federal Government--sets the standards for society. I believe I speak for many in this Chamber when I say Government should be setting an example for our citizens on how to conduct their lives. Government, by its actions, should not, therefore, ratify and legitimize death in our society. But I do not want to dwell on that aspect. There are substantive policy grounds on which to oppose the death penalty. I will recount five of them here. too expensive Life imprisonment without hope of release is more cost effective than the death penalty.”