With the declining faith in the potential for rehabilitation as a goal of correctional intervention, the sentencing objective most seriously debated in reference to capital punishment is retribution. However, in itself retribution in no way justifies the death penalty. With the inherent ambiguity of just deserts as grounds for penalty, it is not surprising that supporters of the death penalty overwhelmingly favor the exercise of discretion in sentencing. Thus, the sentence can be proportioned not only to the seriousness of the given act but also to the relative culpability of the given offender. In the case of the death penalty, the objective of reliably isolating through mere language the few who merit that extreme sacrifice should be acknowledged as beyond our capacity. Without clear justification for execution, the death penalty stands as a symbol, capital punishment is particularly susceptible to contamination by self-serving judgments of what or who is most abhorrent. The evidence suggests that such factors as racial discrimination, socioeconomic bias, and inflamed passion can exert a corrupting influence on perceptions of guilt and assessment of sentence. Despite a plethora of enlightened guidelines on criminal justice, sentencing, and correctional policy, we are facing the same populations in the prisons: the black, the poor, and the unattractive. Chapter notes and about 260 references are provided. (Author summary modified)