Romell Broom's Argument Against The Death Penalty

When you think of the term “cruel and unusual punishment”, what is the first thing that pops into your head? You are probably thinking of something very horrific and terrible like being forced to fall out of an airplane that is 30,000 feet in the air because you forgot to turn in your homework or something crazy along those lines. When a punishment is administered upon someone that is too severe a consequence for the action that they committed, this is considered to be “cruel and unusual”. The Death Penalty is a punishment that is occasionally given within the United States and in many other places around the world for crimes that are considered absolutely inexcusable and heinous. Some would argue that the Death Penalty should be considered a “cruel and unusual” punishment due to two major propositions as presented in Romell Broom’s argument. Broom argues that it can be used to promote double jeopardy (which is prohibited by the constitution) and if the punishment is delayed or prolonged it can cause uncalled for intense pain and suffering upon the individual being punished. The term “double jeopardy” refers to the idea that someone can be charged more than once for the same offense in a court of law (“Double…”). The Fifth Amendment in the United States constitution protects all of us from this type of punishment.

While Romell Brown attempts to conduct an argument, he comes up with two premises and tries to reason why they can be assumed to be true. He tries to back up his argument by making a case for himself, but I feel that he lacks some philosophical logic in some very important areas to secure his point of view with not only myself but also with the justices on the United States Supreme Court when they rejected his appeal to not re-attempt an execution via The Death