See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 28th, 2007 at 9:38 pm, River Rat said:

   “You certainly should be ashamed,” Saginaw County District Court Judge A.T. Frank said as he sentenced Kolinski to clean the veterans memorial in front of Governmental Center on Aug. 7.

2. #2
   On July 28th, 2007 at 9:41 pm, smfoushee said:

   This country needs more punishments like this. Reminds me of the purpose of ye old stocks, where someone was bound in public for ridicule and humiliation.

   Bravo Judge Frank!

3. #3
   On July 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm, ajmontana said:

   Stop the Presses! A good Judge story!
   See Judge’s….It’s not so hard to do the right thing.

4. #4
   On July 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm, IrishEyes said:

   Judges and police who understand that punsihments should fit the crimes. May be some hope for U.S. after all.

5. #5
   On July 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm, jeffNWV said:

   As a former resident of Saginaw, I suggest Mr. Kolinski wear a bullet proof vest while cleaning the monument. It’s like Escape from L.A. where that monument is located.

6. #6
   On July 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm, bear1909 said:

   Make him wear only chaps and a gourd penis sheath with a bell on his buckle.

7. #7
   On July 28th, 2007 at 10:25 pm, ajmontana said:

   Yikes Bear, the visual..ew….

8. #8
   On July 28th, 2007 at 10:33 pm, Snooper said:

   It isn’t fair. Call the ACLU!!

   Oh. Wait. Sorry. I was having a Leftinistra moment.

   My bad.

9. #9
   On July 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm, zorro said:

   Great story Michelle. Thanks!

   I hope the greedy son of gun has learned his lesson.

10. #10
    On July 28th, 2007 at 11:08 pm, bear1909 said:

    ajmontana- webee talkin shame and humiliation in “Sag -n- Aw”

11. #11
    On July 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am, josetheguerilla said:

    Now, if we could just get that judge to issue tooth brushes to hollyweird movie stars who play Vets who turn into criminals. Good judge story.

12. #12
    On July 29th, 2007 at 6:13 am, Bruce said:

    Sounds great, but it also sounds like cruel and unusual punishment… especially unusual.

13. #13
    On July 29th, 2007 at 8:01 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

    Forget the sentence, to hear a judge use the word “shame” again is like a breath of fresh air. Who knows, maybe his remark is so outrageous to some people that it has an edge, and because of the edge will become hip again. Wouldn’t that be a nice daydream? Anyway, three cheers for the Judge on all levels. It’s a win-win for everyone with decent intent.

14. #14
    On July 29th, 2007 at 8:33 am, Gabe said:

    I agree with Bruce. That is “unusual” punishment and therefore unconstitutional. I’m all for harsh, uniform sentences–I like Singapore’s stiff penalties for vandalism and would love to see MS13 members get caned and deported–but this sentence of cleaning something with a toothbrush is definitely “unusual.” Also, it seems like there are certain judges that want publicity and are giving weird sentences to be in the news.

15. #15
    On July 29th, 2007 at 9:05 am, ajmontana said:

    Judges have been handing down sentences like this forever, making people wear sandwich boards etc. And the only cruelty in this matter comes from the crooks praying on victims from fallen Hero’s. Here’s one example of punishment for dimwits.
    http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/2_24/pages/vandals.html

    There are thousands of others…..

16. #16
    On July 29th, 2007 at 9:12 am, Gabe said:

    To clarify my comment, America needs uniform harsh sentences, such as Singapore’s example of giving the death penalty to drug runners and gangsters. But to have one judge arbitrarily giving strange sentences (perhaps to get on the news) strikes me as “unusual” and probably unconstitutional. There seems to be too many flamboyant judges like the Anna Nicole one who want publicity.

    Finally, to see a bunch of people hooting and jeering an embarrassed, beaten down 73 old man wearing “I stole from veterans” placard forced to clean a memorial with a toothbrush would make most people feel sympathy for the 73 year old–which defeats the purpose this kind of public “shame” punishment. Jail time would be better.

17. #17
    On July 29th, 2007 at 10:03 am, LaMonte said:

    I think it has to be ‘cruel AND unusual’ to be a concern. Is there a level of cruelty here which is greater than jailtime?

18. #18
    On July 29th, 2007 at 11:09 am, Bicyea said:

    Bet the taxpayers still have to supply the toothbrush and the bucket!

19. #19
    On July 29th, 2007 at 12:51 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    Bet the taxpayers still have to supply the toothbrush and the bucket!

    Might I add that he will probably get some free medical treatment out of this too.

20. #20
    On July 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm, twoninerkilo said:

    Good for the judge. I hope the S.O.B. has a stroke in the August heat. I’d hate to say what I’d do to the old war profiteer, besides Michelle would’nt let me.

21. #21
    On July 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pm, rightisright said:

    #16 looks like a die hard lib, relativist maybe? Must be a deep thinker. Imagining the culprit cleaning the memorial with a toothbrush does not bring sympathy for the scoundrel in my eyes. I say it’s his just desserts. Like any crime…when caught, you must pay the time.

22. #22
    On July 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm, Gabe said:

    RightIsRight-

    Die-hard lib? I’m very conservative. Having a flamboyant judge like the Anna Nicole one intent on getting his name in the news by meting out “unusual” sentences is hardly what our Founders envisioned. The sentence also backfires. People should have no sympathy for someone who steals from veterans; however, when you have an humiliated 73-year-old wearing a placard and being jeered by people, sympathy will naturally switch to him–at least by most normal people.

    If the judge wants to shame the 73-year-old, just give him jail time where he can reflect on what he has done wrong.

    The Constitution clearly is against “unusual” punishments. This style of public embarrassment is more in line with what was common in England at the time our Founding Fathers broke off. It also is not in the American tradition. And, yes, the judge did get a lot of press from this “unusual” punishment.

23. #23
    On July 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm, dkeppner said:

    Gabe, jail time vs. community service. Okay, granted the toothbrush may be a little over the top but replace the toothbrush with a scrub brush and you simply have a sentence of cleaning a memorial. One, which I might add, is a standard community service sentence. So not so unusual at that.

    The man misrepresented himself for the sole purpose of getting money. Probably has never served his country in any capacity and I seriously doubt he’s ever contributed to his community either. The judge saw it, stated his disgust and awarded an appropriate sentence. Far better than chucking the man in jail so taxpayers can pay for his food, board, and medical.

    Let’s put an end cap on this. By making this sentence so public the judge has acheived several objectives. First and foremost, he weighed the facts and adjudicated the case on its merits. His sentence in this matter brought to light a fraud which might have otherwise been a simple paragraph in some small town newspaper’s crime blotter. Lastly, by making the public aware, the judge has probably prevented this man from doing such a crime again. If not from the shame, then at the least by the community being aware of the scam and his identity.

24. #24
    On July 29th, 2007 at 6:49 pm, rac said:

    At risk of being labeled a “die-hard lib” I must say that I agree with Gabe with respect to “unusual” punishments. Let me also say I don’t feel any sympathy for this 73 year old guy either.

    My concern is, and always has been, with judges handing down “unusual” sentences for the purpose of humiliating someone. Just sentence the guy to what ever the law allows and be done with it. In my view, it is the judge having a holier than thou moment.

25. #25
    On July 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm, xplodeit said:

    All right, good news. Though, I do like the caning idea.

26. #26
    On July 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm, feebiebabe said:

    Brilliant.

    My sister stole a belt from K-Mart when she was little. My mom had a manager called, had my sister apologize to the manager and tell them what she did.

    When we got home my mom had her sit out front with a sign for an hour stating “I stole from K-MART and this is my punishment”.

    Of all the punishment methods, Humiliation seems to work best.

    She never stole again.

    Something tells me if this man’s parents had done this to him to begin with….he wouldn’t have to be wearing a sign at 73 years old.

27. #27
    On July 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pm, jhn1 said:

    Is the Constitutional prohibition on
    cruel or unusual punishment or
    cruel and unusual punishment

28. #28
    On November 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am, mileslibertatis said:

    Eighth Amendment:

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.