Not to be coy, but I believe the Castle Doctrine allows the "death sentence on burglars", not as a matter of policy but as a matter of practice.
The doctrine seems to appreciate that a homeowner does not have a lot of time to ascertain why someone has broken into their home (to burglarize? to rape? to assault? to murder?), and then grants them the right to use deadly force.
As detailed on the above wiki link, some states are certainly more comfortable with the concept than others.
Even in the states where the doctrine is most valued, the law stops short of allowing extra-judicial executions on thieves.
Please allow me to explain....
As a kid, my dad told me a story of a case that happened in rural Ohio in the 50's. It seems someone's vacant home was repeatedly being burglarized while the homeowner was at work. The thieves simply came in the front door, and the police did nothing but take reports of the crime after it occurred.
Frustrated, the man rigged a shotgun to a string so that it would discharge when someone came in the front door. A few days later, the thief opened the door and was instantly killed.
In this instance, someone was extrajudicially killed for merely being a thief. The owner of the home was arrested and found guilty.
In 2013, I believe every state in the US would pursue criminal charges in the same situation.
When (and if) we ever stop doing so, we will be allowing extra-judicial executions of thieves/burglars in both practice and policy, and I would not feel we are being moral and just.
The change on Nostrand will make the one on Franklin look minor