Capital punishment, however, does reflect the retributive perspective and is the most obvious modern manifestation of Hammurabi's code. Even so, the moral righteousness of capital punishment is questionable for several reasons. First, capital punishment is illogical and hypocritical. If killing another human being is wrong, and if the state kills human beings, then the state is committing a wrongful act. Second, capital punishment can be considered cruel and unusual. Third, capital punishment precludes the state from promoting positive moral values in favor of a perceived increase in public safety. Whether public safety is increased by the use of capital punishment is also questionable. For the most part, capital punishment is used "solely for symbolic purposes," (Turow, cited by Stern, 2003). Capital punishment is the epitome of revenge-based, retributive justice. It would seem that even if revenge were morally just, that the state would have no justifiable role in exacting revenge.

Morally gray areas of punishment include maximum security prisons and the procedures used to control and monitor inmates. The basic conflict is between the rights of the individual offender and the rights of the victim. Justice system professionals, policy makers, and citizens face ethical conundrums when contemplating the ideal balance. What role the state should have in terms of surveillance of convicted sex offenders may also pose problems for policy makers and justice system officials. Moreover, punishment...

A "tough on crime" fervor that swept through the United States during the 1980s and which still persists has had a profound impact on many American citizens. Three strikes laws and strident drugs laws are a few examples of when "tough on crime" can be an ethically questionable justice policy.
The moral dimensions of punishment draw heavily on prevailing social and ethical values. A society with strong social cohesion will rely less on punishment and more on a system of "informal sanctions" that moderate anti-social behavior (Townsend, 2005). Punishment can serve as a cop-out, a convenient means of brushing social problems under a carpet. Income disparity, a lack of social services, and a breakdown in community cohesion in the United States may all be precursors to the type of anti-social behavior that sometimes leads to criminal behavior. Confining offenders to what Foucault referred to as a panopticon may have unintended consequences for the moral health of the whole society.

References

Primorac, I. (nd). Is Retributivism Analytic? The Royal Institute of Philosophy. Retrieved June 17, 2007 at http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=20

Stern, S. (2003). Discussing the morality of capital punishment. Christian Science Monitor. 12 Nov 2003. Retrieved June 17, 2007 at http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1112/p16s01-usju.html

Townsend, C. (2005). The morality of punishment. Cambridge Papers. 31 May 2005. Retrieved June 17, 2007 at http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/moralityofpunishment.html