Lehigh County Criminal Lawyer

I previously blogged last month about cruel and unusual punishment and mentioned a case regarding whether a penalty is civil or criminal. That case that I quoted was, Commonwealth v. CSX Transportation Incorporated from 1998. In this particular case, several factors were mentioned by the court to determine when the legislature has intended to establish a civil penalty as opposed to a criminal penalty. These factors included:  1: whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint such as imprisonment; 2: whether the sanction has historically been regarded as a punishment; 3: whether the sanction only comes into play upon a finding of scienter; 4: whether the sanction's operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment such as retribution and deterrence; 5: whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; 6: whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and 7: whether the sanction appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.

In Coker v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court found that a sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape and therefore it was unconstitutional. The same court, however, held that life imprisonment was not grossly disproportionate for a property crime imposed under an habitual criminal statute. A life sentence for such a crime might violate the Eighth Amendment if there is no possibility of parole, leaving the only means of ending incarceration as a commutation of sentence by the executive authority. Your Lehigh County criminal lawyer should tell you that in  Pennsylvania, this would be the Governor.  The basic requirement of a valid death penalty procedure is that it provide "objective standards to guide, regularize and make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death." This is from the case of Woodson v. North Carolina from 1976. The death penalty statute was also allowed for consideration of mitigating circumstances relevant either to the particular offender or the particular offense.  This is from the case of Roberts v. Louisiana decided by the Supreme Court in 1977.