Too bad the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits imposing cruel and unusual punishment.
It's all in how you interpret these things.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" but the courts decided that this means nobody can make a law.
The Second Amendment says the right "shall not be infringed" but the courts decided that a whole of infringing a good idea.
No cruel and unusual punishment? How about this -- every time someone shoots up a school, we put him through a woodchipper? Now, yes, that's cruel. But if we do it in all cases, it wouldn't be unusual it all. It would be the usual thing. So it wouldn't be both "cruel and unusual". It would simply be cruel, and therefore not prohibited.
It all depends on how you want to read the clear words.
The key is who defines what is cruel and unusual punishment. It is a very malleable term in the hands of unelected activist judges who do not answer to the people. Every few election cycles the people should be allowed to vote on what is cruel and unusual punishment.
And even worse that slimy defense lawyers define every type of punishment as "cruel and unusual."