dissenting.
The majority has determined that the legislature in drafting Section 1311 of the Sentencing Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1311 (Supp.1977-78) has failed to meet the standards required under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution and consequently holds that the death sentence imposed in this case under Section 1311 must be set aside.1 My interpretation of the United States Supreme Court decisions that followed Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), leads me to conclude that the Pennsylvania scheme for the imposition of the death penalty in cases of murder of the first degree is in accord with the Federal Constitutional mandates and I therefore must disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority.
I.
In the afternoon of December 29, 1974, the body of James Price, an inmate of Holmesburg Prison, was found hanging by a bedsheet suspended from a grate inside cell 457 of “D” block of the prison by a prison guard.2 Death was deter*241mined to have occurred between four to eight hours prior to the discovery of the body. The pathologist’s examination revealed that the cause of death was strangulation. Additionally, it was ascertained that the victim had been tortured and mutilated before death.3
Calvin Hunter testified that he was an inmate of the prison at the time in question and that he had been transferred to “D” block on the morning of December 29, 1974, as a consequence of a disciplinary violation of “C” block where he had formerly been assigned. At approximately 9:00 A.M. on that date, Hunter stated that the area became unusually quiet. He then heard noises from the front of the block and as the noise came closer he was able to observe, appellee, Theodore Moody, Theodore Brown and John Griffin with the victim between them.4 The group proceeded in the direction of cell 457 at which point Hunter heard the victim screaming for help and yelling “They’re killing me.” When the noise stopped, appellee, Theodore Brown and John Griffin retraced their steps past Hunter’s cell going in the opposite direction. Hunter called out to Griffin and inquired as to the reason for the noise. In response, Griffin stated, “Nothing that concerns you.”
The Commonwealth also presented evidence as to the question of motive. The victim, Price, had cooperated with Federal authorities and testified before the grand jury relating to the Hanafi Muslim murders which occurred in Washington, D. C., on January 16, 1973. The testimony of the victim implicated Theodore Moody in the Hanafi massacre. As a result, Moody was indicted, charged and convicted of 14 counts of murder. On the day in question, Moody was aware that Price had cooperated with the Federal authori*242ties in bringing about his conviction for the Washington crimes.5
II.
Under the statutory scheme providing for the imposition of the death penalty by a jury in this jurisdiction, an accused must first be found guilty of murder of the first degree. Murder of the first degree is defined as a criminal homicide committed by an intentional killing. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a) (Supp.1977-78). An intentional killing is further defined as a killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502 (Supp.1977-78). Pennsylvania has continued its practice of a bifurcated procedure in which the question of sentence is not considered until the determination of guilt has been made. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1311 (Supp. 1977-78). During the sentencing hearing the parties may introduce “such additional evidence not previously received from the trial as may be relevant and admissible upon the question of aggravating and mitigating circumstances”. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1311(c) (Supp.1977-78). Argument by counsel is also permitted. Section 1311 further specifies nine aggravating circumstances and three mitigating circumstances.6 *243The jury is to be instructed as to the various mitigating and aggravating circumstances and advised that a sentence of death may not be imposed unless they find the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and determine that none of the statutorily enumerated mitigating circumstances are present. The decision to return the sentence of death must be unanimous, thus the failure to agree upon the aggravating and mitigating circumstances will result in the imposition of a life sentence. As indicated above, the aggravating circumstances must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but the existence of the *244statutory mitigating circumstances need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
In addition to the conventional appellate process available in all criminal cases, which in this Commonwealth provides that there is a direct appeal in homicide cases to the Supreme Court,7 provision is made for special expedited direct review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania “within 60 days after certification by the sentencing court of the entire record.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1311(g) (Supp.1977-78). The law of this Commonwealth also provides that a death sentence may be commuted by executive clemency. Art. 4, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
III.
Responding to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Furman v. Georgia, supra, this Court struck down the Pennsylvania statute then in effect8 as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 449 Pa. 19, 295 A.2d 842 (1972). See also, Commonwealth v. Dobrolenski, 460 Pa. 630, 334 A.2d 268 (1975); Commonwealth v. Scoggins, 451 Pa. 472, 304 A.2d 102 (1973); Commonwealth v. Ross, 449 Pa. 103, 296 A.2d 629 (1972); Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 449 Pa. 33, 296 A.2d 524 (1972); Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 449 Pa. 35, 296 A.2d 519 (1972). Thereafter, the legislature enacted Section 1102 which became effective June 6, 1973. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102. Section 1102 provided:
“A person who has been convicted of a murder of the first degree shall be sentenced to death or to a term of life imprisonment.”
*245This section was distinguished by a complete lack of direction as to the circumstances that would warrant imposition of the death penalty. Additionally, at that time the murder statute was designed to include willful and deliberate killings as well as felony murders under the category of murder of the first degree. 1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6, 1973; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a).9 It would appear that Section 1102 was not passed in an effort to meet the objections raised in Furman, but rather for the sole purpose of providing some legislative authority for the imposition of a death sentence until an appropriate scheme pursuant to the Furman mandate could be formulated. Present Section 1311 is the provision which the legislature designed in an effort to fulfill the Furman requirements.
IV.
The quintet of cases handed down by the United States Supreme Court on July 2, 197610 answered the question left open by that Court’s decision in Furman. These cases make it clear that a state can design a procedure for the imposition of the death penalty for murder of the first degree that may be found to be consistent with the mandates of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the satisfaction of a majority of the members of the United States Supreme Court as it is presently constituted. The task is complicated however by the fact that the differing views expressed in *246Furman have yet to congeal to an extent where there is a consensus by a clear majority of Justices as to those factors which must be present to assure compliance with the constitutional standards. Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL have maintained their view that the Federal Constitution prohibits capital punishment for all crimes under all circumstances. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER and Justices BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, dissenters in Fur-man, have continued to find all of the statutory schemes considered by that Court to comport with their concept of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mr. Justice WHITE, although concurring in the result in Furman, has since been aligned with the Chief Justice and Justices BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST. Up to this point the constitutionality of a statutory scheme for the imposition of the death sentence has been dependent upon the view of a plurality consisting of Mr. Justices STEWART, POWELL (a dissenter in Furman) and STEVENS. Thus, it is legitimate to conclude that if section 1311 provides a statutory scheme acceptable under the standards articulated by this “plurality” it would more than likely withstand a constitutional challenge in the Federal system.
Turning to an analysis of the view of the “plurality”, it is apparent that although they have agreed that the punishment of death is not per se violative of the Federal Constitution, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), a statutory scheme may run afoul of the constitutional mandates if it is not in accord with the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In ascertaining these “evolving standards of decency”, the “plurality” has suggested that an assessment of contemporary values and a determination of whether the penalty is in accord with “the dignity of man” are relevant considerations.11 The plurality has also sug*247gested that in any assessment of a statutory scheme promulgated by the legislature, there should be a heavy burden upon those “who would attack the judgment of the representatives of the people.”12 Utilizing these basic propositions the “plurality” concluded:
whether capital punishment may ever be imposed as a sanction for murder) rather than in the particular (the propriety for a specific crime) is under consideration, the inquiry into ‘excessiveness’ has two aspects. First, the punishment must not involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Furman v. Georgia, supra, 408 U.S., at 392-393, 92 S.Ct., at 2805-2806 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). See Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. [130], at 136 [25 L.Ed. 345]; Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. [349], at 381, 30 S.Ct. [544], at 554 [54 L.Ed. 793]. Second, the punishment must not be grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U.S., at 100, 78 S.Ct., at 597 (plurality opinion) (dictum); Weems v. United States, supra, 217 U.S. at 367, 30 S.Ct. at 549.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 173, 96 S.Ct. at 2925.
*248“We hold that the death penalty is not a form of punishment that may never be imposed, regardless of the circumstances of the offense, regardless of the character of the offender, and regardless of the procedure followed in reaching the decision to impose it.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra at 187, 96 S.Ct. at 2932.
In considering the procedure to be followed in reaching the decision of life or death, the “plurality” has perceived the mandates of Furman to require that the sentencing scheme must be so designed as to avoid “a substantial risk that it [the death sentence] would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”
“Furman mandates that where discretion is afforded a sentencing body on a matter so grave as the determination of whether a human life should be taken or spared, that discretion must be suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra at 189, 96 S.Ct. at 2932.
The “plurality” has determined that the information necessary to be supplied to a jury to permit it to properly consider such a decision must include facts relating to “the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra. The “plurality” also requires that the sentencing scheme must make some effort to provide the jury with guidance regarding these factors about the crime and the offender.
“While some have suggested that standards to guide a capital jury’s sentencing deliberations are impossible to formulate, the fact is that such standards have been developed. When the drafters of the Model Penal Code faced this problem, they concluded ‘that it is within the realm of possibility to point to the main circumstances of aggravation and of mitigation that should be weighed, and weighed against each other, when they are presented *249in a concrete case.’ Model Penal Code § 201.6, Comment 3, p. 71 (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959) (emphasis original). While such standards are by necessity somewhat general, they do provide guidance to the sentencing authority and thereby reduce the likelihood that it will impose a sentence that fairly can be called capricious or arbitrary. Where the sentencing authority is required to specify the factors it relied upon in reaching its decision, the further safeguard,of meaningful appellate review is available to ensure that death sentences are not imposed capriciously or in a freakish manner.” (Footnotes omitted). Gregg v. Georgia, supra at 193-95, 96 S.Ct. at 2934.
In determining whether the procedure itself is a fair one, the “plurality” has given its imprimatur to schemes that allow the sentencing decision to be made by a jury. They do however strongly indicate that where the jury is to be entrusted with the sentencing decision, a bifurcated procedure should be employed.
“Jury sentencing has been considered desirable in capital cases in order to maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system — a link without which the determination of punishment could hardly reflect ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ But it creates special problems. Much of the information that is relevant to the sentencing decision may have no relevance to the question of guilt, or may even be extremely prejudicial to a fair determination of that question. This problem, however, is scarcely insurmountable. Those who have studied the question suggest that a bifurcated procedure — one in which the question of sentence is not considered until the determination of guilt has been made — is the best answer.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra at 190-91, 96 S.Ct. at 2933.
The “plurality” has also looked favorably on attempts to narrow the class of murders subject to the extreme sanction and also provisions for expedited appellate review. Gregg v. Georgia, supra. Although expressing a strong preference for individualized sentences rather than mandatory ones, *250Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976); Roberts (Stanislaus) v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976); Harry Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633, 97 S.Ct. 1993, 52 L.Ed.2d 637 (1977); Green v. Oklahoma, 428 U.S. 907, 96 S.Ct. 3216, 49 L.Ed.2d 1214 (1976); Sparks v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 905, 96 S.Ct. 3213, 49 L.Ed.2d 1212 (1976), there is a suggestion that the “plurality” might find acceptable a narrowly-defined category of offenders where mandatory sentences might not be offensive.13
Analyzing the Pennsylvania scheme in view of the considerations and factors deemed important by the plurality, we must begin with the presumption that the legislative enactment is to be accorded the presumption of constitutionality and that those challenging the statutory scheme must bear a heavy burden. Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 175, 96 S.Ct. 2909. We are also obligated to follow the statutory law of this jurisdiction which requires an interpretation of legislative intent to be, wherever possible, consistent with the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of this Commonwealth. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(3) (Supp. 1977-78).
*251Turning to the first maxim that a penalty must not be “excessive”, it is apparent that section 1311 satisfies this requirement. The Pennsylvania legislature has limited the imposition of capital punishment to convictions of murder in the first degree, § 1311(b), which in this jurisdiction is confined to killings “committed by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a) (1972). The “plurality” has given its approval to the application of the death penalty to broader definitions of murder, e. g., felony-murder. Gregg v. Georgia, supra; Proffitt v. Florida, supra; Jurek v. Texas, supra. In fact, under the Pennsylvania scheme, which limits the type of murder which may be punished by death to a deliberate taking of life, there is compliance with the express language of the “plurality” in Gregg.
“. . . when a life has been taken deliberately by the offender, we cannot say that the punishment is invariably disproportionate to the crime. It is an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 187, 96 S.Ct. at 2932.
Thus, under the guidelines that have been articulated by the “plurality” it is clear that the Pennsylvania scheme provides a punishment which is not “grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” To the contrary, it fits neatly within the perimeters that have been found to be acceptable by the plurality.14
Regarding the Court’s concern with avoiding unbridled discretion on the part of the jury, the Pennsylvania legislature has provided safeguards designed to prevent the risk of such arbitrary action. Section 1311(c) provides for a mandatory consideration by the jury of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining whether to impose the death penalty. The circumstances listed in the statute, § 1311(d), provide the “direction” and “limitation” for the *252jury that Furman and Gregg required “to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.”
A somewhat comparable scheme of aggravating and mitigating circumstances was approved in Proffitt v. Florida, supra. It is significant that under the Pennsylvania scheme the possibility of arbitrary action is further minimized by the requirement that the imposition of death is mandatory where one or more of the statutorily enumerated aggravating circumstances is present and there is an absence of any of the mitigating factors. On the other hand, under the Pennsylvania scheme, where there is a finding of one of the mitigating circumstances or a finding that none of the aggravating circumstances are present, then the sentence must be life imprisonment. In contrast, the Florida statute permits the jury to weigh the competing factors without providing any specific weight to be given to the various factors. Thus, the Pennsylvania scheme clearly provides a more controlled exercise of the sentencing discretion.
Finally, the plurality has expressed certain preferences concerning the sentencing procedure itself. The Pennsylvania procedure strongly approximates the procedures upheld in Gregg, Proffitt and Jurek. The Pennsylvania statute, like the Georgia, Florida and Texas statutes, provides for a bifurcated proceeding, § 1311(c); and it provides for the automatic expedited appellate review, § 1311(g).14a
V.
The conclusion by the majority of this Court and the court en banc that section 1311 did not comport with constitutional standards is premised upon the belief that the section fails to provide for the dissemination of sufficient information relating to the character and background of the offender to the jury. In my judgment, this position can only be supported by an unwarranted, restrictive reading of the language of section 1311. Further, such a construction ignores *253our responsibility to interpret legislative enactments so that their terms comply with constitutional directives. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(3) (Supp.1977-78). Even more grievous is the fact that the construction urged by the majority produces a result that is at variance with the long-standing sentencing policies in this jurisdiction.
The United States Supreme Court in ruling upon the death penalty statutes that have been promulgated since Furman, has properly considered the terms of those enactments in light of the construction placed upon them by the State’s highest court. Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 201-202, 96 S.Ct. 2909; Proffitt v. Florida, supra, 428 U.S. at 255-256, 96 S.Ct. 2960; Jurek v. Texas, supra, 428 U.S. at 272, 96 S.Ct. 2950. It is my judgment that the language of section 1311 properly construed by this Court would clearly meet constitutional muster.
It has been the long settled law of this jurisdiction that even in non-capital cases a consideration of the defendant’s background and character is an important element in the sentencing decision. Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976).15 Even prior to Furman, we held in capital cases that a trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the death penalty solely on the basis of the criminal act. Commonwealth v. Green, 396 Pa. 137, 151 A.2d 241 (1951). At that early stage our cases made it clear that it was improper to fail to consider the character of the convicted individual and to make inquiry as to the existence of any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Commonwealth v. Green, supra. See also, Commonwealth v. Garramone, 307 Pa. 507, 515, 161 A. 733, 737 (1932); Commonwealth v. Irelan, 341 Pa. 43, 47, 17 A.2d 897, 898-99 (1941). In Commonwealth v. Green, supra, this Court stated:
“The imposition of the death penalty by a judicial tribunal should be made only when it is the sole penalty justified both by the criminal act and the criminal himself and then *254only after a full and exhaustive inquiry into both the criminal act and the criminal himself. Time and again in referring to the duty of juries in fixing the penalty between death and life imprisonment we have insisted that the jury exercise its discretion only after it has considered all the evidence, culpatory and exculpatory, incriminating and extenuating, including what manner of man the criminal is and has been: Com. v. Wooding, 355 Pa. 555, 557, 50 A.2d 328; Com. v. Stabinsky, 313 Pa. 231, 237, 238, 169 A. 439; Com. v. Dague, 302 Pa. 13, 15, 152 A. 839; Com. v. Bentley, 287 Pa. 539, 135 A. 310. The same rule binds a court sitting without a jury to determine the penalty for murder of the first degree.” Id. 396 Pa. at 148, 151 A.2d at 247.
In addition to the Pennsylvania case law, the legislature of this State since early in the twentieth century has embraced the concept of indeterminate and individualized sentencing. First, this State required sentencing of minimum to maximum terms of imprisonment. Act of June 19, 1911, P.L. 1055, § 6, as amended, 19 P.S. § 1057 (1964). Then the legislature reinforced this provision by allowing suspension of sentence and probation, at the court’s discretion, in all but the most serious crimes. Act of June 19, 1911, P.L. 1055, § 1, as amended, 19 P.S. § 1051 (1964). Following that, the sentencing court was conferred with the power to run sentences consecutively or concurrently. Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1036, § 1. Finally, the legislature gave the trial court the power to order a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric and diagnostic examination of the defendant to determine the appropriate disposition. Act of March 31,1860, P.L. 427, § 73.1. Most recently, the legislature codified their philosophy of individual sentencing in requiring courts to “call for the minimum amount of confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321(b) (Supp.1977-78). See generally Commonwealth v. Martin, supra.
*255To ignore this abundant evidence of a firmly established principle of sentencing in our construction of the instant section is totally unsupportable. This is particularly true in light of the fact that section 1311 is a part of the sentencing code which has expressly reaffirmed its adherence to the philosophy of individualized sentencing. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321(b) (Supp.1977-78). To justify an interpretation of section 1311 which would reject individualized sentencing would require clear and unambiguous language in the enactment under scrutiny evidencing such an intention. Such is clearly not the case here.
The majority opinion and court en banc focuses upon section 1311(d)(2)(i), regarding the age, lack of maturity and youth of the defendant, in finding the statute unconstitutional. By improperly focusing upon the clause “at the time of the killing” the majority argues that the section excludes a sufficient consideration of the total character of the accused. The spirit of the Pennsylvania case and statutory law require a different result as the term “lack of maturity” is easily susceptible to a broad interpretation so as to encompass considerations of the defendant’s character and background. The term “maturity” is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, as having attained the normal peak of natural growth and development.16 In order to determine what stage of development an individual has reached, there would necessarily have to be an examination of all of the factors influencing the developmental process. Relevant to this analysis is the individual’s home life including whether he emerges from affluent or deprived circumstances, the number of parents he was raised by and the quality of the rearing, the environment of the neighborhood in which he was raised, his emotional and psychological makeup, his educational exposure, whether or not he has had any military experience, his past criminal offenses, if any, including both adult and juvenile convictions, his religious training or lack of it, and any medical or cosmetic infirmities *256that might reflect on his maturity. Therefore, all of the constitutionally required considerations are implicit in the definition of “lack of maturity.”
Additionally, “age” “youth” and “maturity” cannot all be construed to have the same meaning. “Lack of maturity” must have some relevance beyond merely chronological age for it is a well-established rule of statutory construction in this jurisdiction that the General Assembly intends all of the statutory provisions to be effective and certain, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(2) (Supp.1977-78) and the legislature cannot be deemed to intend any language of a statute to be superfluous and without import. Consumers Education and Protective Association v. Nolan, 470 Pa. 372, 368 A.2d 675 (1977).
The “plurality” of the United States Supreme Court in Jurek v. Texas, supra, was willing to find the Texas death penalty statute to be broad enough to encompass the defendant’s character. The death penalty statute in Texas, Tex. Code Crim.Proc., Art. 37.071 (Supp.1975-76), requires the jury to answer three questions subsequent to a verdict of guilty of one of their enumerated capital homicides.17 A positive answer to all three questions will result in the imposition of the death penalty. The constitutionality of this procedure turned on whether the questions allow consideration of particularized mitigating factors. The Court found that question two, concerning the probability of the defendant committing further acts of violence, allows a defendant to bring to the jury’s attention whatever mitigating circumstances he may be able to show, because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals indicated that it would *257interpret question two to that effect. Likewise, if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would interpret “lack of maturity,” as it should, to encompass the consideration of the defendant’s character and background, section 1311 would also be constitutionally sound.
Even accepting the narrow interpretation of the majority opinion and the court en banc, the United States Supreme Court has struck down only the mandatory death penalty statutes lacking any consideration of mitigating factors. Woodson v. North Carolina, supra; Roberts v. Louisiana, supra; Harry Roberts v. Louisiana, supra. This suggests that perhaps only a complete foreclosure of the introduction of any mitigating circumstances would render a death penalty statute unconstitutional. This possibility is further supported by the suggestion of the “plurality” that a mandatory death penalty statute which is limited to the narrow category of murder by a prisoner serving a life sentence may be valid. See Woodson v. North Carolina, supra, 428 U.S. at 286, n. 7, 292, n. 25, 96 S.Ct. 2978.
VI.
In conclusion it is my view that the Pennsylvania statutory scheme for the imposition of the death sanction in murder cases when fairly read is fully in accord with the announced philosophy of the “plurality” of the Supreme Court. To reach a contrary conclusion the majority has strained and tortured the unambiguous language of section 1311. It is particularly regrettable that my brethren chose to express their apparent misguided sympathy for the instant appellee. Even under the furthest stretch of the imagination a credible theory cannot be propounded to support the view that the imposition of the death penalty for this offender would be repulsive to “the evolving standard of decency.” I feel that the majority’s attempt to find a basis for giving relief on a facial attack upon the section is equally as untenable.
. Although Theodore Moody, through his counsel, raised the question as to the propriety of the death sentence under Art. I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, neither the court en banc nor the majority of this Court considered that issue. I will therefore confine my discussion in this opinion to a consideration of the Federal Constitutional questions raised under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. My decision not to address the problems that might be raised under Art. I, § 13 at this time should not be construed as indicative of my view as to the merits of those issues.
. Cell block “D” is a maximum security area.
. The instrument causing death was a ligature or garrote fashioned from three shoe laces, which was secured around .the victim’s neck. There were numerous recent injuries on the body; the most noticeable were in the area of the testicles and rectum. These injuries were determined to have been caused by multiple insertions of a sharp instrument that would have caused excruciating pain.
. Hunter described their respective positions as being somewhat like a football huddle with Price in between the three men.
. The instant killing occurred on December 29, 1974. Moody had been convicted on May 17, 1974, for the Hanafl murders and was sentenced to seven consecutive life sentences. Although it is not clear from the record why Moody was being detained in Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia rather than in some federal facility, it appears that he was convicted on eleven counts of aggravated robbery, burglary and rape in January of 1975. These crimes were committed in this jurisdiction and it is very probable that his detention at Holmesburg was in connection with the processing of these charges.
. Section 1311(d) provides:
(d) Aggravating and mitigating circumstances. — If a murder of the first degree is accompanied by at least one of the following aggravating circumstances and none of the following mitigating circumstances, the person convicted shall be sentenced to death. If a murder of the first degree is not accompanied by any of the following aggravating circumstances or is accompanied by at least one of the following mitigating circumstances the person convicted shall be sentenced to life imprisonment:
(1) Aggravating circumstances:
*243(i) The victim was a fireman, peace officer or public servant concerned in official detention as defined in section 5121 of this title (relating to escape), who was killed in the performance of his duties.
(ii) The defendant paid or was paid by another person or had contracted to pay or be paid by another person or had conspired to pay or be paid by another person for the killing of the victim.
(iii) The victim was being held by the defendant for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage.
(iv) The death of the victim occurred while defendant was engaged in the hijacking of an aircraft.
(v) The victim was a witness to a murder or other felony committed by the defendant and was killed for the purpose of preventing his testimony against the defendant in any grand jury or criminal proceeding involving such offenses.
(vi) The defendant committed a killing while in the perpetration of a felony.
(vii) In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense.
(viii) The offense was committed by means of torture.
(ix) The defendant has been convicted of another Federal or State offense, committed either before or at the time of the offense at issue, for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable or the defendant was undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment for any reason at the time of the commission of the offense.
(2) Mitigating circumstances:
(i) The age, lack of maturity, or youth of the defendant at the time of the killing.
(ii) The victim was a participant in or consented to the defendant’s conduct as set forth in section 1311(d) of this title or was a participant in or consented to the killing.
*244(iii) The defendant was under duress although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution under section 309 of this title (relating to duress).
. The jurisdiction of this Court over the instant appeal is found in the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. II, § 202(1), 17 P.S. § 211.202(1) (Supp.1976-77).
. Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 701, as amended, 18 P.S. § 4701.
. This section provided:
(a) Murder of the first degree. — A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree if the actor is engaged in or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, or kidnapping.
. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976); Stanislaus Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976).
. “A penalty also must accord with ‘the dignity of man,’ which is the ‘basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment.’ Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U.S. [86], at 100, 78 S.Ct. [590], at 597 (plurality opinion). This means, at least, that the punishment not be ‘excessive.’ When a form of punishment in the abstract (in this case,
. “Therefore, in assessing a punishment selected by a democratically elected legislature against the constitutional measure, we presume its validity. We may not require the legislature to select the least severe penalty possible so long as the penalty selected is not cruelly inhumane or disproportionate to the crime involved. And a heavy burden rests on those who would attack the judgment of the representatives of the people.
This is true in part because the constitutional test is intertwined with an assessment of contemporary standards and the legislative judgment weighs heavily in ascertaining such standards. ‘[I]n a democratic society legislatures, not courts, are constituted to respond to the will and consequently the moral values of the people.’ Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S., at 383, 92 S.Ct. [2726], at 2800 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). The deference we owe to the decisions of the state legislatures under our federal system, id., at 465-470, 92 S.Ct. [2726], at 2842-2844 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), is enhanced where the specification of punishments is concerned, for ‘these are peculiarly questions of legislative policy.’ Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 1285, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958). Cf. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. [660], at 664-665, 82 S.Ct. [1417], at 1419-1420 [8 L.Ed.2d 758]; Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S., at 103, 78 S.Ct., at 599 (plurality opinion); In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. [436], at 447, 10 S.Ct. [930], at 933 [34 L.Ed. 519], Caution is necessary lest this Court become, ‘under the aegis of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the ultimate arbiter of the standards of criminal responsibility . . . throughout the country.’ Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 533, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 2154, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968). A decision that a given punishment is impermissible under the Eighth Amendment cannot be reversed short of a constitutional amendment. The ability of the people to express their preference through the normal democratic processes, *248as well as through ballot referenda, is shut off. Revisions cannot be made in the light of further experience. See Furman v. Georgia, supra, 408 U.S., at 461-462, 92 S.Ct., at 2839-2840 (Powell, J., dissenting).” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 175-76, 96 S.Ct. at 2926.
. One possible exception noted by the “plurality” appears to be a mandatory death penalty statute limited to an extremely narrow category of homicide such as murder by a prisoner serving a life sentence. See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 286, n. 7, 292, n. 25, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976). In Woodson, the “plurality” suggested that where the accused is serving a life sentence at the time of the killing that fact alone might provide sufficient insight as to the character of the offender to meet their concept of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ mandate in this regard. Id. at 286, n. 7, 96 S.Ct. 2978. Also significant in this context is the following observation which appears in the “plurality’s” opinion in Gregg.
“And there are some categories of murder, such as murder by a life prisoner, where other sanctions may not be adequate.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 186, 96 S.Ct. at 2931.
The appellee in the appeal presently before us has not only been sentenced to seven consecutive life sentences, but also the crime was committed while he was confined under maximum security. It is therefore difficult to postulate a factual situation more compelling than the facts before us in this appeal where another life sentence would be more inadequate.
. As of the writing of this opinion, the “plurality” has yet to express a view on the acceptable manner of the imposition of the death sanction. It can only be assumed that the traditional methods of execution will not be found to be constitutionally prohibited.
. The Pennsylvania statute also places the sentencing decision with the jury where the determination of guilt was made by the jury, a procedure which was approved in Gregg, supra.
. Although this writer dissenting in Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 136, 351 A.2d 650, 659 (1976), my disagreement was not related to the law as it was expressed by the majority in that opinion, but rather its application to the facts then before the Court.
. “Words and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903(a) (Supp. 1977-78).
. “(1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result;
“(2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and
“(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.” Art. 37.071(b) (Supp.1975-1976).