Two opposing theories of punishment -- retribution and utilitarianism -- are discussed as well as the constitutional justifications for punishment. Eighth amendment procedural and substantive requirements are explored, along with the Court's requirement that punishments must be proportional to the offense. The article argues that the Supreme court's approach to death penalty punishment is retributive rather than utilitarian, that the Booth decision, in emphasizing that sentencing decisions be based on culpability, argues for a solely retributive result, and that the Court's rejection of utilitarian theories such as vengeance is unjustified. The article concludes that Booth should be overruled and considerations of victim suffering should be a part of the sentencing equation. 146 footnotes.