{"id":653,"date":"2012-04-17T15:48:36","date_gmt":"2012-04-17T19:48:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=653"},"modified":"2012-04-19T14:29:30","modified_gmt":"2012-04-19T18:29:30","slug":"united-states-v-gementera","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/united-states-v-gementera\/","title":{"rendered":"United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (2004)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case Name: <\/strong>United States v. Gementera
\nCitation: <\/strong>379 F.3d 596 (2004)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/strong> Gementera stole mail and plead guilty to mail theft. He had a long criminal history for a twenty-four year old. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommended a two to eight month incarceration. The judge sentencedGementera to two months incarceration and three years supervised release. One of the conditions of the release was 100 hours of community service that would consist of standing in front of a post office with a sandwich board that state \u201cI stole mail. This is my punishment.\u201d After another hearing, other options were added for the community service (i.e. writing apology letters and speaking at local schools) and the sandwich board activity was diminished to one day of eight hours.<\/p>\n

Issue: <\/strong>Whether a punishment that shames or humiliates serves a legitimate objective and is reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s argument: <\/strong>The punishment was meant for the impermissible purpose of humiliation; in violation of a federal statute. Also, that the humiliation was not \u201creasonably related\u201d to rehabilitation.<\/p>\n

State\u2019s argument: <\/strong>The humiliation was not an \u201cends\u201d in itself but a \u201cmeans\u201d to the legitimate objective for the defendant to understand the seriousness of his crime (that it was not a victimless crime). It is also reasonably related to offense and the history of the defendant.<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s reasoning: <\/strong>The district court seemed to think that the defendant did not understand the seriousness of his crime. There is still academic debate whether \u201cshaming\u201d works to rehabilitate the criminal and prevent others from committing a crime as opposed to recidivism. \u00a0The district court did not have to display scientific evidence that this type of punishment was effective.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong>The condition was reasonably related to the statutory objective of rehabilitation.<\/p>\n

Dissent: <\/strong>The sandwich board condition violates the Sentencing Reform Act. Furthermore, this \u201cshaming\u201d goes to dehumanize the defendant not rehabilitate. Affirming the condition \u201crecalls a time in our history when pillories and stocks were the order of the day.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Name: United States v. Gementera Citation: 379 F.3d 596 (2004) Facts: Gementera stole mail and plead guilty to mail theft. He had a long criminal history for a twenty-four year old. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommended a two to eight month incarceration. The judge sentencedGementera to two months incarceration and three years supervised release. … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (2004)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[146,145],"tags":[155],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nUnited States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (2004) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Gementera stole mail and plead guilty to mail theft. He had a long criminal history for a twenty-four year old. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommended a two to eight month incarceration.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/united-states-v-gementera\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (2004) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Gementera stole mail and plead guilty to mail theft. He had a long criminal history for a twenty-four year old. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommended a two to eight month incarceration.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/united-states-v-gementera\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-04-17T19:48:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-04-19T18:29:30+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/united-states-v-gementera\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/united-states-v-gementera\/\",\"name\":\"United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (2004) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-04-17T19:48:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-04-19T18:29:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Gementera stole mail and plead guilty to mail theft. He had a long criminal history for a twenty-four year old. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommended a two to eight month incarceration.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/united-states-v-gementera\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=653"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":692,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653\/revisions\/692"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}