A factory owner, to increase profits, knowingly uses in the manufacturing process a substance known to cause cancer or other bodily harm to the workers and/or consumers of the manufactured product. A decade later, a study of the affected population of workers and/or consumers finds that through cancer deaths or other afflictions, the life spans across the large affected population were or will be cut by a total of 100 years. Therefore, it seems equitable that 100 years be cut from the life span of the factory owner, which would only be possible through the implementation of the death penalty.
It would seem to me that the relevant charge(s) would be reckless homicide. Reckless homicide does not carry the death penalty.You would have to prove the factory owner directly intended for those people to die before you coud prove homicide in the first degree, which would be a prerequisite for capital punishment.
Your point is valid in applying existing law, but a new law could be written to provide capital punishment for deadly polluters. Capital punishment does not always require that the offender have intent to kill. For example, in the U.S. treason is a capital offense even if the traitor betrayed his country for money and did not think his actions would result in death.
Really? Look at John Walker, who actually did take up arms against his country. He never faced death. Changing the law would be a mistake. It would be fraught with abuse. Perhaps the way to go would be to charge these guys with felony homicide.
Likely, Walker never faced death because the U.S. Congress never declared war and, thus, the Taliban were never officially the “enemy.”
The US government, and it's military, are the largest polluters on Earth. State governments aren't much better. Where do you plan to start with the death penalty convictions?