Final answer:
The Supreme Court's interpretation of 'cruel and unusual punishment' under the Eighth Amendment has resulted in prohibiting certain historical punishments and evolving protections based on societal standards, such as prohibiting execution of the intellectually disabled, while generally upholding the legality of the death penalty.
Step-by-step explanation:
The interpretation of the Eighth Amendment by the Supreme Court regarding "cruel and unusual punishment" has evolved over time. The Court has ruled against certain barbarous punishments that were once common, such as drawing and quartering, and has set precedents like forbidding the execution of intellectually disabled individuals, as such actions are deemed incompatible with modern standards of decency. However, the Court has generally allowed the death penalty to stand, but not without controversy and ongoing debate regarding methods of execution, such as the use of lethal injection vs. firing squads, and the appropriate balance between punishment and the government's responsibility to the public good.
Notably, in cases such as Furman v. Georgia and Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court has made specific determinations about what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These cases illustrate the Court's approach to evolving standards and societal consensus when interpreting the Eighth Amendment. The Court often engages in a balancing act, weighing the penal system's need for punishment and deterrence against the constitutional protections against inhumane treatment of convicts. Generally, the Supreme Court avoids setting a definitively exhaustive list of prohibitions, preferring to deal with cases as they arise and considering the principles of justice and contemporary values at that time.