In a way. In Furman v. Georgia, the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" led to a four-part test ([1]):
- 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."
In a real way, cruel but banal is permitted under this test. For instance solitary confinement and slavery, the latter of which is expressly permitted for prisoners under the 13th amendment.
This is of course why the US penal system needs wholesale reform.
I think a lot of our current practices in the prison system fall under "cruel and unusual punishment". A large segment of Americans are obsessed with punishment and at every opportunity they push for harsher sentences and the cruel treatment for prisoners.
I don't think we can truly reform the justice system until we deal with the culture that brought us to this point. It's the cruelty of the voters that holds us back from large scale changes, and the cruelty of the employees working within the prison system that enable it at a local level.
- 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."
In a real way, cruel but banal is permitted under this test. For instance solitary confinement and slavery, the latter of which is expressly permitted for prisoners under the 13th amendment.
This is of course why the US penal system needs wholesale reform.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment