Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 27, 1993
Drug Kingpin Death Penalty Act - Provides for imposition of the death penalty upon those: (1) subject to mandatory life imprisonment for committing a Federal drug felony as part of a continuing criminal enterprise; (2) convicted of committing such a felony as part of a continuing criminal enterprise where the defendant is a principal administrator, organizer, or leader of such an enterprise and, in order to obstruct the investigation or prosecution of the enterprise, attempts or conspires to kill any public officer, juror, witness, or family or household member of such a person; and (3) who, intending to cause death or acting with reckless disregard for human life, engage in a Federal drug felony resulting in the death of another person. Sets forth mitigating and aggravating factors. Establishes procedures for a special hearing to determine whether a sentence of death is justified. Requires the court to: (1) instruct the the jury that, in considering whether a sentence of death is justified, it shall not consider the race, color, religious beliefs, national origin, or sex of the defendant or any victim; and (2) impose a sentence of death if the jury (or if there is no jury, the court) returns a recommendation of the death penalty. Sets forth procedures for review and implementation of a sentence of death. Provides for appointment of counsel in Federal capital cases for indigent defendants. Sets standards for competence of counsel. Specifies that appointment of counsel in the Federal habeas corpus review of State capital cases is discretionary.
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.696 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.696 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.696 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.696 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.