'I stole mail'

[Qun Mang]

'I stole mail'

By James Vicini Mon Nov 28,11:40 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed a California man to be sentenced to spend a day outside a San Francisco post office wearing a signboard stating, "I stole mail. This is my punishment."

The justices rejected an appeal by Shawn Gementera, who argued that this was designed to publicly shame and humiliate him. He said it violated the Sentencing Reform Act and the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Gementera pleaded guilty to mail theft after the police arrested him and an accomplice in 2001 for stealing letters from several mailboxes in San Francisco.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in 2003 sentenced Walker to two months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release.

The conditions for his release required Gementera to spend four days at a post office observing patrons inquire about lost or stolen mail, to write letters of apology to the victims of his crime, to give three lectures at high schools about his crime and to wear the two-sided sign for one eight-hour day.

Gementera appealed the legality of the signboard requirement, but a U.S. appeals court panel, by a 2-1 vote, ruled against him in August.

The appeals court said the record in the case showed that the judge imposed the condition for the legitimate purpose of rehabilitation.

It said the judge could have imposed a lengthier prison term instead of the signboard condition, and added that crimes and the resulting penalties nearly always cause shame and embarrassment.

Gementera's attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court.

"The shaming condition amounted to nothing more than the piling on of an additional and quite gratuitous requirement -- designed to publicly humiliate (Gementera) -- in contravention of federal law," they said.

"Punishments aimed at imposing shame and humiliation are inconsistent with a constitutional requirement that punishments, even for heinous crimes, be consistent with human dignity," they said.

U.S. Justice Department attorneys said a sentence may serve a legitimate rehabilitative purpose, even if makes the defendant feel uncomfortable or embarrassed in public.

The high court turned down Gementera's appeal without any comment or recorded dissent.

[Avodah]

I know if I had to serve his punishment, I would never steal again for fear of being caught and having to be humbled again.

[nebula]

The guy's a cry-baby.

I've heard of parents who caught their kid stealing a candy bar make the kid return it and apologize to the clerk.

Public humiliation is most likely the best punishment he could get - less likely to repeat the offense.

[Bolts]

Its a good reminder to keep a check on the mailbox, lock the doors and keep the windows sealed ............. Christmas is coming!!

[PwrInTheBld]

My mailbox needs a key

[Gerioke]

This rings a bell

leviicus 13: 44 He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head.

45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bore, and he shall put a covering on his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.

[Guest shiloh357]

This rings a bell

leviicus 13: 44 He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head.

45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bore, and he shall put a covering on his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.

Not really. For one, this has nothing to do with a person committing a crime.

Secondly, they are not standing in a public place declaring their uncleanness, but are sent away and quarantined to a private place outside the camp until healed. If they are approached, they are required to let the one approaching know that they are in danger of coming upon someone with a contagious disease.

The purpose was not public humiliation. It was to protect the rest of the people. There is no similarity between public humility for a crime and dealing with a contagious disease.

No bells rining here.

[Bolts]

Not really. For one, this has nothing to do with a person committing a crime.

Secondly, they are not standing in a public place declaring their uncleanness, but are sent away and quarantined to a private place outside the camp until healed. If they are approached, they are required to let the one approaching know that they are in danger of coming upon someone with a contagious disease.

The purpose was not public humiliation. It was to protect the rest of the people. There is no similarity between public humility for a crime and dealing with a contagious disease.

No bells rining here.

Shiloh,

... without having to start a thread on this one, do you think it is true that back in those days, if someone killed someone else, they had to carry the corpse on their back until it decomposed itself off?

[Gerioke]

This rings a bell

leviicus 13: 44 He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head.

45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bore, and he shall put a covering on his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.

Not really. For one, this has nothing to do with a person committing a crime.

Secondly, they are not standing in a public place declaring their uncleanness, but are sent away and quarantined to a private place outside the camp until healed. If they are approached, they are required to let the one approaching know that they are in danger of coming upon someone with a contagious disease.

The purpose was not public humiliation. It was to protect the rest of the people. There is no similarity between public humility for a crime and dealing with a contagious disease.

No bells rining here.

Well it made me think of it.

[ONE WHO WISHES TO LOVE GOD]

When i was younger i once got caught with my hand in the cookie jar i was overwelmed by their yumyness still dont feel to guilty about it. ...........