In the case of Banks v. Wainwright, a prisoner named James Banks challenged his confinement in solitary isolation on death row for over 11 years as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. He argued that this prolonged period of isolation had caused him severe mental distress and physical harm. The Supreme Court ruled against Banks, stating that while conditions of confinement may be harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. The court also noted there was no evidence to suggest Florida's authorities were deliberately indifferent to Bank's medical needs or inflicted unnecessary pain upon him during his incarceration on death row. Therefore, it concluded that Bank’s treatment did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Banks v. Wainwright, Corrections Director was not explicitly stated in available documents. The Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand the case indicates that there may have been differing views on whether or not Banks' constitutional rights were violated during his trial for murder. However, without specific details about a dissenting opinion from one or more justices, it is impossible to summarize their potential objections or concerns regarding this case.