15 .See Allen v. State, 636 So.2d 494, 497 n. 5 (Fla.1994) ("Unlike the federal Constitution, the Florida Constitution prohibits ‘cruel or unusual ' punishment.’ Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const. This means that alternatives were intended.”). See also Tillman v. State, 591 So.2d 167, 169 n. 2 (Fla.1991) ("The use of the word ‘or’ indicates that alternatives were intended.”). 16 . See Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const. ("[Cjruel or unusual punishments] ... are forbidden."). 17 . The federal criteria, by comparison, vary. The United States Supreme Court has analyzed a number of government practices under the federal "cruel and unusual” provision, including the imposition of death on special groups of defendants, see, e.g., Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct.
holding that it is cruel and unusual to execute the insane holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment holding that it is not cruel and unusual to execute the mentally retarded holding that under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution the government may not execute a mentally retarded person holding the death penalty unconstitutional for mentally retarded defendants