IN FURMAN V. GEORGIA, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE DEATH PENALTY, AS IT EXISTED AT THAT TIME, WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES DID NOT REACH THE ISSUE OF ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PER SE. THUS, THE STATES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPEAR TO HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN PERPETUATING THE DE FACTO ABOLITION EFFECTED BY FURMAN AND REINSTITUTING THE DEATH PENALTY BY LEGISLATION IN ACCORDANCE IWTH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT CASE. TWO POSSIBLE METHODS OF COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ARE OUTLINED IN THIS ARTICLE: NARROWING THE RANGE OF OFFENSES SUBJECT TO THE DEATH PENALTY, AND USE OF STANDARDS TO CONTROL THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE JURY OR JUDGE OR BOTH. THE AUTHOR ALSO DISCUSSES THE ISSUE OF MANDATORY VERSUS DISCRETIONARY SENTENCING, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND JURY UNDER A REVISED SYSTEM OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)