The Puzzle About Authority and Punishment

Consider the following claims:
1.) An act of legal punishment is morally justified only if the government has the moral authority to make and enforce the applicable law.
2.) If the government has the moral authority to make and enforce a particular law, then those to whom the law is addressed have a moral obligation to obey it.
3.) No one ever has a moral obligation to obey the law.
4.) No act of legal punishment is ever morally justified.*
5.) Some acts of legal punishment are morally justified.*

Claims 4 and 5 cannot both be true. Yet, which one is false? So on one hand, claim 5 certainly seems to be true. Our government is not to be orally faulted for punishing at least some of those currently in prison. On the other hand, claim 4 follows from the first three premises. Its true if the first three are, and they certainly seem to be true.

What solution/s might we be able to develop? Especially from theories of philosophers such as Bentham, Rawls, Kant, Hampton, ven dan Haag, Nathanson, etc.