Do we really know what cruel and unusual actually is? I don't think so. Assume for a moment that if we took a convicted criminal who without any doubt (not just reasonable) committed a crime worthy of death, like a mass murderer, and we tortured and executed him on prime time TV, it would actually deter other people from doing the same thing. It's pretty widely agreed that to take someone and do that to them on prime time TV is cruel and unusual punishment. Instead we basically hide punishment and it is generally not harsh, at least not harsh enough to stop crime. My question is which is more cruel and unusual, to inflict a punishment like I described on someone or to not do it and be guaranteed that many other innocent people will become victims? I would argue it's more cruel and unusual to future victims to not inflict those kinds of punishments on certain deserving souls. If not inflicting a punishment, no matter how harsh, guarantees more victims, then not inflicting that punishment is cruel and unusual. People like Dharmer, McVeigh, Bin Laden, Hitler, Son of Sam, Kazinsky, Stalin, that jerk that imprisoned those 3 girls and school shooters should get that kind of punishment, instead others will keep doing the same things.