I would be interested in seeing the Supreme Court&#x27;s rationale that solitary confinement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The four principles guiding the court are as follows from Wikipedia:<p>The &quot;essential predicate&quot; is &quot;that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,&quot; especially torture.<p>&quot;A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.&quot;<p>&quot;A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.&quot;<p>&quot;A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.&quot;<p>The Eighth Amendment was copied virtually verbatim from the English Bill of Rights and wasn&#x27;t actually used to proclaim a particular punishment was unconstitutional until 1910, 119 years after the American Bill of Rights was ratified. Since then, the principles of &quot;proportionality&quot; and &quot;evolving standards of decency&quot; are evolving to ascertain constitutionality questions. Neither principle appears to do the trick.<p>Of the four principles above, only the first seems to apply. So the Court will have to declare that solitary confinement is torture in order to stop its widespread use. As seen, the Court has historically been cautious in declaring punishments unconstitutional, waiting until the battle has already been mostly fought in the sphere of public opinion.<p>Given the stances the Court has taken concerning the death penalty, I predict that no sweeping, immediate prohibitions will take place, rather the Court will apply largely ineffectual provisions to the imposition of solitary confinement.<p>For example, the Court has ruled in 2002 that capital punishment is constitutionally cruel and unusual when applied to inmates with intellectual disabilities. Georgia promptly responded by making it virtually impossible to obtain a judgment.