ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED THE DEATH PENALTY TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN 1972, IT WAS THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH DEATH SENTENCES WERE HANDED DOWN THAT THE COURT CONDEMNED, NOT THE PENALTY ITSELF. IN THE WAKE OF THE COURT'S RULING, SEVERAL STATES ADOPTED ONE OF TWO NEW PROCEDURES; IN ESSENCE, THEY CREATED A 'NEW' DEATH PENALTY TO OVERCOME THE PROBLEM UNDERSCORED BY THE COURT. THE FIRST INVOLVED MAKING DEATH MANDATORY UPON CONVICTION FOR A SPECIFIC CRIME, WHILE THE SECOND PROVIDED STANDARDS TO GUIDE JURIES IN MAKING CAPITAL CASE DECISIONS. IN 1976, THE SUPREME COURT APPROVED THE LATTER APPROACH, STRIKING DOWN THE FORMER. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATION ASIDE, QUESTIONS REMAIN REGARDING THE MORAL PROPRIETY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND ITS POSSIBLE EFFECTIVENESS AS A DETERRENT. THE MORAL DILEMMA LIES AT THE HEART OF THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ISSUE: DOES THE DEATH PENALTY ENHANCE THE VALUE OF LIFE, OR DEMEAN IT? ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE SECONDARY TO THIS CONSIDERATION, THOUGH, UNFORTUNATELY, OF LATE THE MORAL DIMENSIONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT HAVE BEEN IGNORED, TAKING A BACK SEAT TO ARGUMENTS ABOUT DETERRENCE, RACIAL PREJUDICE, AND LEGAL PROCEDURES. PRO-DEATH PENALTY ADVOCATES ARGUE THE RETRIBUTIVE LINE, BUT ADMITTING THAT RETRIBUTION AS A BASIS FOR PUNISHMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS ACKNOWLEDGING THE MORALITY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. RETRIBUTION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD; IT PLACES LIMITS ON THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PUNISHMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME DEMANDS A MINIMUM. AS FOR DETERRENCE, AVAILABLE, THOUGH INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT CONVICTED FIRST-DEGREE MURDERERS WHO WERE SPARED EXECUTION AND LATER RELEASED FROM PRISON, FAIRED BETTER ON PAROLE THAN ANY OTHER TYPE OF EX-CONVICT. ANTICAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENTS BASED ON RACIAL FACTORS ALSO CONTINUE TO HOLD UP, WITH BLACKS ALREADY EXECUTED OR AWAITING EXECUTION MAKING UP SOME 50 PERCENT OF PAST OR EXISTING DEATH ROW POPULATIONS, DESPITE THEIR MEAGER 10 PERCENT REPRESENTATION IN SOCIETY AT-LARGE. (KBL)