1. In chapter 3 of the book DeathQuest, Robert M. Bohm discusses the legal struggles with the death penalty and the Supreme Court’s influence on the future of the death penalty. One of the main concepts presented by Chapter 3 of the book is that the death sentence isn’t simply another form of criminal punishment; it’s the toughest form of punishment that we have. Because of that, the legal system handles it in a unique way.So, when a person says that the death penalty needs "super due process", that means that the government needs to be careful before putting a person to death. Due process only means that a person gets a fair trial. But "super due process" means that the process needs to go a step further than a fair trial. This means that more procedures should be followed before a person is put to death.Bohm continues that this notion arose from situations such as Furman v. Georgia (1972), where the Supreme Court held that the issuance of the death sentence was being carried out arbitrarily and unfairly. Therefore, after that situation, states were compelled to amend their legislation to address the issue of making the entire procedure fair and consistent. This was where things such as separate sentencing trials, automatic appeals, and evidence requirements got involved.In simple words, since the situation is so urgent, a person’s life may be at stake. That person needs more than the usual due process that a system can provide. This is what a system of ‘super due process’ aims to achieve.
2.Chapter 3 (Bohm, 2017) covers the legality of capital punishment and how the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret and define the legality and operations of capital punishment. Over a multitude of Supreme Court cases, the constitutionality of the death penalty has been brought forward for deliberation and has brought forth the establishment of a discretionary process called "super due process". The potential implementation of such a process could aid in avoiding issues such as those cited in Furman v. Georgia. Chapter 4 (Bohm, 2017) talks about different death penalty statutes, how the Supreme Court has ruled in unique cases, and an overall explanation into how the Supreme Court handles capital cases that are brought to them. A good bit of these cases consist of issues surrounding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, those of which effect the overall ability of the death penalty to be given. Other various issues such as the eligibility for execution and assistance of counsel are touched on as well. The film that was assigned this week touched on some of the issues brought up within all chapters of our previous readings and followed the execution of jury deliberation and how it can impact a trial. 12 Angry Men (1957) showcased how one juror, through his questioning of the presented evidence, managed to instill reasonable doubt within all of the other jurors. Specific court cases relevant to this film include, but are not limited to, Powell v. Alabama and Gregg v. Georgia, both of which have been discussed in previous readings.
As for super due process, the implementation of this would be incredibly helpful in limiting constitutional violations and ensure that the death penalty is only imposed in cases where necessary or deserving. However, this process is not directly constitutionally required so it should be left up to the states to decide whether to implement it or not. At its core, super due process consists of a greater scrutiny of evidence and a long list of procedural safeguards to ensure that the proper punishment is given. It basically holds capital cases to a higher standard of inspection as to ensure that justice is served properly. Ideally, each state would choose to implement this on their own due to the benefits of such a process. It has yet to be, and most likely will not be, implemented on a nation-wide level; However, with the delicate nature of the death penalty, regardless if it be super due process or other means of safeguarding, states should make constitutionality and discretion a high priority