The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Cruel and Unusual

The issue here is what does Supreme Court precedent say about what is cruel and unusual? And as the court describes in its majority opinion, that actually the way the Supreme Court is interpreting cruel and unusual is evolving standards of decency. So for example, stocks would not be permissible because we have reached a social consensus that stocks are cruel. What is the definition of cruel and unusual does change. That's current Supreme Court precedent. Whether or not a state is an absolute outlier on a particular kind of punishment is very, very much relevant to the cruel and unusual analysis.