PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 26, 2005
Innocent Life Protection Act of 2005 - Requires any State which had sentenced to death a person determined to be innocent by a subsequent judicial process, to suspend the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty for at least ten years.
Prohibits a State from terminating such moratorium until it has, upon application, received a written determination by the Attorney General that: (1) due process of law with respect to capital punishment is observed within that State; (2) the State has established a broadly representative judicial review board that has examined all death penalty cases which are subject to the moratorium and determined they are free of due process violations; (3) during the last ten years of the moratorium there has been no reversal on appeal by a defendant from a capital sentence; (4) the State pursues capital punishment cases without racial bias; and (5) the State meets American Bar Association standards for appointment, performance, and compensation of counsel for indigent persons.
People & committees
Rep. Fattah, Chaka [D-PA-2] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.379 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.
Examine H.R.379 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.
Examine H.R.379 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.
Examine H.R.379 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.