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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are thousands of others…..