Seriously, though:
high treason and exceptionally heinous violent crimes, maybe once a year in all of the US on average.
and/or
- First-degree murder (i.e., any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought)
- Felony murder (i.e., murder in the commission of another felony, such as robbery, kidnapping or carjacking)
- Terrorism (i.e., premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets, or providing material support to accomplish such)
- High treason (i.e., levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies)
I can't imagine it'd get used very much, and that's the way it should be. Executions should, as Dead0Man says, be very rare, making national news. Also, it must only be used in cases where the accused has already accepted and plead to be guilty (of the crimes obviously, not whether the crimes were right or wrong).
To opponents of the death penalty, what do you think should've happened to Adolf Hitler after World War II? Genuinely curious. I see the death penalty as the only option. Staying in prison indefinitely is too inhumane and risks the chance that he might escape (
don't mean to generalize but Nazis tend to be master escape artists, based on what we saw happen during the 40s, also we must mention that Hitler would have millions of devoted followers probably willing to die for him).
