In cases involving cruel and unusual punishment how has the court generally ruled

In cases involving cruel and unusual punishment (hanging, execution, etc.), or punishments with the intent of embarrassing or shaming the receiver, the court generally rules to prohibit most of these punishments (with the exception of cases involving murder(s)).

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government of the United States of America from using cruel and/or unusual punishments on United States soil against any United States citizen.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

answer; self_ disclosure;