failure of the revised execution protocol to require properly trained personnel to be present during executions (to assess anesthetic depth prior to the injection of the drugs that cause paralysis and cardiac arrest and death, and to remedy any unforeseen problems that may occur), and to specify more precise timing of the injections so as to reduce the likelihood of an inmate being conscious during the latter stages of the procedure. The defendants, however, have allayed this latter concern by revising the protocol during the pendency of this appeal to require the personnel carrying out an execution to wait two and one-half minutes after the injection of the anesthetic before proceeding to inject the remaining two drugs called for in the protocol. See ROA, Vol. IV 34 L.Ed. 519 (1890) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude there is nothing in the
holding that the death penalty does not violate the prohibition against cruel punishments set forth in article 1 section 13 of the pennsylvania constitution holding that punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death holding that punishments are cruel when they involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories holding the death penalty disproportionately cruel and unusual when imposed for the crime of rape