WHEN THE SUPREME COURT INVALIDATED THE THEN EXISTING SYSTEM OF JURY-IMPOSED DEATH SENTENCES (FURMAN V. GEORGIA, JUNE 1972), EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN BOTH THE SUPPORTING AND DISSENTING DECISIONS. JUSTICES RULING FOR THE OPINION CITED THE ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION OF THE DEATH PANALTY, PARTICULARLY IN CASES IN WHICH A BLACK MAN WAS ACCUSED OF RAPING A WHITE WOMAN. THE FACT THAT MOST PERSONS WHO WERE ACTUALLY EXECUTED WERE POOR, BLACK, AND MALE -- FAR OUT OF PROPORTION TO THEIR NUMBERS IN THE POPULATION OR TO THEIR COMMISSION OF CRIMES -- WAS A MAJOR POINT IN FURMAN'S PRESENTATION BEFORE THE COURT. OTHER JUSTICES, IN WRITING SEPARATE OPINIONS, POINTED OUT THAT STUDIES DID NOT UPHOLD THE IDEA THAT THE DEATH PANALTY WAS A VALID DETERRENT. SIMILAR RESEARCH WILL BE NEEDED TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW DEATH PENALTY LAWS WHICH HAVE BEEN PASSED SINCE THE FURMAN DECISION. RESEARCH WILL BE NEEDED TO FIND OUT IF THE 'MANDATORY' DEATH PENALTIES ARE APPLIED IN A UNIFORM MANNER. SIMILAR RESEARCH IS ESSENTIAL FOR 'GUIDED DISCRETIONARY' STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A LIST OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALLOW THEM TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER (AND IN SOME CASES, RAPE) IF AT LEAST ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE AND NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT. IT SEEMS PROBABLE THAT EMPIRICAL DATA WILL SHOW THAT FOR THE MOST PART THE NEW SYSTEMS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WILL NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS INFREQUENTLY APPLIED. THE PROBLEM WILL COME IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE DEATH PENALTY IS BEING ARBITRARILY APPLIED. DEFINING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DEATH PENALTY'S IMPORTANCE AS A DETERRENT WILL ALSO BE NECESSARY BEFORE THE SOCIOLEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE NEW STATUTES CAN BE ANSWERED. A SUBSTANTIAL LIST OF NOTES IS PROVIDED. (GLR)