A majority of the U. S. Supreme Court justices is growing progressively impatient with death penalty appeals and is determined to shorten the path from sentence to execution. The public, like the justices, has reason to be concerned about the mockery being made of our criminal justice system through endless legal appeals and delays. Since the High Court reinstated capital pimishment seven years ago, only 10 convicts have been executed, while the roll of those condemned to die has lengthened markedly. A Currently there are l,272 inmates on death rows in the 36 death penalty states, 250 more than a year ago. Like many other laws, capital punishment is controversial. But as long as it is on the statute books it should be administered with reasonable dispatch. One round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court should be enough. The latest man put to death – convicted murderer Robert Sullivan died just recently in Florida’s electric chair. He had spent 10 years on death row. Having won an execution delay in 1979, Sullivan was in his third round of appeals. Creative lawyers striving to keep their client alive even revived the often turned down point that electrocution constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.” it was again struck down. In his own concurring opinion on the Supreme C0urt’s final action, Chief Justice Warren Berger said claims of the death penalty being cruel and unusual were “dwarfed by the cruelty of 10 years on deat row” inflicted by lawyers. Among the many other arguments for reasonable dispatch is this one brought out in a statement by the grandfather of a 10-year-old girl who was kidnapped and bludgeoned to death three years ago: “We want the victims’ families to have a decent life,” he said during a demonstration outside the Florida prison. “And they can’t if these cases drag on.” The girl’s killer is one of 206 inmates still awaiting execution in Florida on the nation’s largest death row. The five justices who comprise the Supreme Coun majority and hope to shorten the death penalty route are Chief Justice Burger, William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White, Lewis F. Powell Jr. and Sandra 0’Connor. Part of the challenge is spreading their influence to the lower federal courts which they perceive as too willing to allow prolonged penalty appeals. The justices deserve support. Indeed the four dissenting members of the High Court should join them in finding a solid approach to solving the sticky problem. ,