To amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), to establish procedures for the adjudication by courts-martial of sentences of capital punishment.
Executive Comment Received from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 1993
Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to establish procedures under which a court-martial may prescribe the death sentence. Requires that: (1) the sentence of death be concurred in unanimously; (2) the offense must be one expressly made punishable by death; and (3) the trial counsel must notify the accused of the intent to prove the existence of an aggravating factor, which is required before a sentence of death may be pronounced. Lists aggravating factors, including committing an offense in the presence of the enemy, presenting a grave risk to national security, and attempting to avoid hazardous duty. Requires the military judge, in the presence of the accused and counsel, to instruct the members of the court-martial on the aggravating factors, all applicable requirements and procedures, and the requirement to consider all evidence in extenuation and mitigation before adjudging a sentence of death. Prohibits a death sentence from being adjudged unless each member of the court-martial concurs that: (1) at least one aggravating factor has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the aggravating circumstances substantially outweigh any extenuating or mitigating circumstances or are themselves sufficient to justify a sentence of death. Requires that any aggravating factors found be announced by the military judge upon determination of the death sentence.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.267 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.267 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.267 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.267 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.