RETRIBUTION AND DETERRENCE ARE ADVANCED AS TWO CONTRASTING THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT. THE FIRST IS MOST CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE WRITINGS OF IMMANUEL KANT AND GEORGE HEGEL, AND THE SECOND WITH THE WRITINGS OF WILLIAM PALEY AND JEREMY BENTHAM. IN THE RETRIBUTIVE VIEW ADVOCATED BY KANT AND HEGEL, THE CRIMINAL ACCEPTS MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WILLING THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACT WHICH, WHEN UNIVERSALIZED, RESULT IN HIS OWN PUNISHMENT. THIS IS TO SAY THAT THE CRIMINAL CHOOSES HOW HE SHALL BE TREATED IN FASHIONING THE CRIMINAL ACT IN HIS BEHAVIOR. THE DETERRENCE VIEW HOLDS THAT PUNISHMENT SHOULD SERVE THE PRACTICAL END OF PREVENTING OR REDUCING THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR PROSCRIBED BY THE LAW. PHILOSOPHERS, SUCH AS KANT AND BENTHAM, ARE COMMONLY DIVIDED INTO THOSE WHO SUPPORT EITHER RETRIBUTIVE VIEWS TO THE EXCLUSION OF DETERRENCE VIEWS OR VICE VERSA. THE DIVISION OF THE JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT QUITE SO SIMPLE. THERE ARE THOSE JUSTICES WHO DO ARGUE THAT PUNISHMENT IN GENERAL MUST BE JUSTIFIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF DETERRENCE CONSIDERATIONS. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE ARE THE JUSTICES WHO DO ARGUE THAT PUNISHMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED BOTH ON THE BASIS OF DETERRENCE AND RETRIBUTIVE CONSIDERATIONS. JUSTICES MARSHALL AND BRENNAN ARE IN THE FIRST GROUP, AND JUSTICES STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, POWELL, STEVENS, AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE ARE IN THE SECOND GROUP, HOLDING THAT BOTH DETERRENCE AND RETRIBUTION ARE PROPER OBJECTIVES OF PUNISHMENT. SUBTLE DIFFERENCES IN THE VIEWPOINTS OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES ARE DISCUSSED. VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS BEARING ON THE COURT'S VIEW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE PRESENTED. THE COURT HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE RETRIBUTIVE JUSTIFICATION OF PUNISHMENT IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY THE RETRIBUTIVE VIEW, REGARDLESS OF ITS DETERRENT EFFECT. A STATE'S DECISION TO USE OR PROHIBIT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS BEST LEFT TO LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION RATHER THAN JUDICIAL DECISION; THE DEATH PENALTY DEMANDS SPECIAL ATTENTION TO GUARD AGAINST ABUSE IN ITS APPLICATION. SOME FURTHER PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE DIFFERING VIEWS FOR THE JUSTIFICATION OF PUNISHMENT ARE ALSO CONSIDERATION. (RCB)