They could assess a 10 minute misconduct penalty...look at Sunday's Pitt/Philly game, there were 3 assessed.
But in the event that a 10 minute misconduct penalty is given that team may substitute for the penalized player immediately. That is why when refs give a misconduct penatly, it's always in conjuction with another minor/major penalty. So, for example, the player is given a "2 and a 10".
Oh and as an aside...Torres is a dirty SOB. I personally am of the opinion that if a player is suspended due to an egregious hit that results in injury, the player should be suspended until the injured player returns. So, for instance, Steve Bertuzzi should have never played again after breaking Steve Moore's neck. I believe THAT would stop the head hunting.
I think your approach about suspensions for violence resulting in injuries coinciding with the duration of the injury for the player who has been targeted, but I'm not so sure this is a good idea. For one thing, you start to get into an area where the "parity" of the players comes into play. If my team has a fourth-line journeyman who is injured by a star player from a close division rival and the opposing player gets suspended, I actually have a vested interest in keeping my player out of action for as long as possible. Secondly, you'd always have to account for mitigating circumstances where the severity of an injury could be exacerbated by one or more factors that are completely out of the aggressor's control.
To me, the NHL Players Association needs to get out in front of this issue and support actions by the NHL that would help protect the players. Part of the problem here is that disciplinary action is limited by provisions of the league's collective bargaining agreement with the NHLPA.
I also find myself wondering why this seems to have become a much more serious problem in recent years. What are some of the contributing factors here? Are players really that much more violent on the ice today than they were 20-30 years ago?