comprises several subparts: (1) execution by electrocution or lethal injection imposes unnecessary physical and psychological torture without commensurate justification; (2) the statute fails to provide any standard of proof for determining that aggravators outweigh mitigators; (3) the statute fails to define for the circuit court s to be meritless. See Miller, 926 So.2d at 1260 (rejecting as meritless a claim that aggravators have been applied in a vague and inconsistent manner); Elledge, 911 So.2d at 78-79 n. 28 (rejecting claim that the death penalty statute fails to provide a.standard for determining that aggravators outweigh mitigators, does not define “sufficient aggravating circumstances,” and does not sufficiently define each of the aggravators); Sochor, 883 So.2d at 789 (<HOLDING>); Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So.2d 784, 794 n. 7
holding that the carrying out of an execution after the first execution attempt had failed did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment holding that defendants claim that execution by electrocution or lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is meritless holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment holding californias sole method of execution lethal gas unconstitutional under the federal cruel and unusual provision holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law