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 Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, found that the definitive standard set forth in the list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the judicial code or appropriately guided by jury discretion to ensure the verdicts are not arbitrary or capricious.