Law Enforcement Officers Death Penalty Act of 1993
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 9, 1993
Law Enforcement Officers Death Penalty Act of 1993 - Amends the Federal criminal code to subject any person who is found guilty of the first degree murder of a Federal law enforcement officer, or certain other Federal officials or employees, to the penalty of death. Subjects anyone who kills a State or local law enforcement officer, while such officer is in the course of duty assisting such a Federal law enforcement officer, to the same punishment as is provided for the killing of the Federal officer in the same circumstances. Establishes procedures for the imposition of the death penalty in such cases. Provides that no person who was less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense may be sentenced to death. Sets forth mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered by the jury in determining whether the death sentence will be imposed. Requires the Government to serve notice upon the defendant a reasonable time before trial or acceptance of a plea that it intends to seek the death penalty, as well as notice of the aggravating factors upon which it will rely. Provides that no presentence report shall be prepared in such cases. Requires a separate sentencing hearing before a jury or the court (upon motion by the defendant) when the defendant is convicted and the Government has filed notice that it intends to seek the death penalty. Allows the Government and the defendant to present any information relevant to a mitigating or aggravating factor without regard to the rules of evidence, but permits information to be excluded where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. Conditions imposition of the death penalty on a unanimous finding by the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, that: (1) the aggravating factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh any mitigating factor found to exist; or (2) in the absence of a mitigating factor, the aggravating factors alone are sufficient to justify a sentence of death. Specifies that: (1) the jury or the court is never required to impose a death sentence; and (2) the jury shall be so instructed. Requires the court to instruct the jury not to consider the race, color, national origin, creed, or sex of the defendant in its consideration of the death sentence. Establishes procedures for: (1) appeal from a death sentence; and (2) implementation of such sentence.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 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.3037 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.3037 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.3037 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.3037 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.