Cute, but I[0] don't think the law is that straightforward to interpret. At least according to Wikipedia[1], "cruel and unusual punishment" is a legal phrase all into it's own, regardless our lay interpretation of the individual words.
In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
* "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
These "principles" probably themselves have oblique legal meanings seperate than what we'd expect, and there's probably been a new ruling or two on the 8th amendment in the past 41 years.
In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
* "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
These "principles" probably themselves have oblique legal meanings seperate than what we'd expect, and there's probably been a new ruling or two on the 8th amendment in the past 41 years.
--
[0] IANAL.
[1] Yes, I know.