oh i preach hate being reminded of that that is correct you declined to allow her to have any part of your test your argument time is that correct well i think we've worked it out we've read the court's orders  with a procedural background so we all understand exactly what happened mr jim and tara was sentenced to two months for rifling having his partner rifle through mailboxes at an apartment complex arrested and processed and then released in then repeated the offense was am i correct about that he said exactly correctly arrested before he could self surrender on his two month my recommendation mr jim and tara together with me go through the rule sixteen discovery ascertain the name of every victim we could and write a letter of apology but the district court would not get off the sandwich board thing and said but he and it just records that the idea behind this is humiliating to make him understand society's disapproval it should be humiliation of having to stand and be labeled and then he'll get a taste of just exactly what the or punishment and it doesn't address rehabilitation because it's pure humiliation and and pure humiliation has nothing to do with rehabilitation there are components of this is that they better or worse alternative you're in jail oh it's clearly i don't think there's any comparison and i would i would say to this court that if a person was put in prison for a year we still would never terms of the question is focused on rehabilitation and they persuasive argument be made one way or the other that he's looks likely to become  that's not a rhythm that he's serving a year in jail or undergoing this eight hours of shaming if you i don't think that anyone knows i think that what we do know is  imprisonment is a legitimate form of punishment and that it's an acceptable component of our criminal justice system but humiliation is not an accepted component of our criminal justice system for humiliation sake i understand what the court asks the court something motivates someone to steal meal and who knows it's psychology is complex but perhaps a component of it the feeling that it's not that big a deal when it doesn't have that much of an impact and whatever but it does in the age of identity theft you take someone's social security number and you can ruin their credit history their ability to pay their home mortgage you can virtually turn their life upside down by the simple act of taking a bank statement out of the mail and it apparently appeared to judge williams that they have nothing else would convince your client to stop doing this well that is not supported by the record and frankly the answer to the court's question is very simple it's not that complex answer the court's question is that as the p s i i identified he has a substance abuse problem he has no coping skills he had no family upbringing he has a very young child no not at all because the business of going to the high school i agree has i think million in component to it just showing up for an arraignment has a has a component of humiliation the whole process is humiliating a criminal defendant it's always associated in some measure with what we do but this was just one hundred percent humiliation for humiliation sake and so i don't think it qualifies as rehabilitation or punishment i think that i think that an organized activity at a school that is directed toward education its primary objective is to educate the students and to give insight to the perpetrator is a far cry from having someone go up to random people in public not knowing what their reaction is going to be that is just pure humiliation besides all the other problems that we talked about that attend so i suppose the condition h this that he was required to go to the post office for a period of time when individuals came in and reported their mail stolen he was required to approach them and tell them that he had been convicted of mail theft and this was part of his rehabilitation to talk with people in the politburo as to them and try to understand the impact that this can have on people's lives would that be different well if that were to be added to the proposal i've made which was to stand and and sitting in the post office and when someone comes in and says my mail was stolen having to talk with them and tell them i'm here this is part of my rehabilitation i've sold so many on the past and on and i want to talk to you about it if you're willing is there a difference between those two things sure there's a difference and yes and of course that's a clear it's not humiliating to talk to one individual victim it's not humiliating to talk to a class of high school and that individual is differentiated among all the people whereas what the court proposes is a one on one contact where under the court's hypothetical it will be two individuals and no other association with the rest of the crowd at the post office a fundamental difference between the two and it goes back to the shaming conditions that have just have been disapproved in the modern era for years and years and years  it occurred to me this morning that the reason there is no federal case on point is that i don't believe any credible district judge has ever understood that a district judge had this kind of power and  and we have a history of lots of judges in this country and we don't see one decision in the federal courts where this has occurred actually i was looking at one of our string sites and it occurred to me that there is one decision that we didn't pay too much saying you will not risk your blood for the country so we will force you to give blood and really wasn't the point of that humiliation and so that three state court decisions we decided most of the courts in one way or another do not squarely confront the issue and duck it either on statutory grounds or otherwise but they don't really squarely confront what's presented but if you look at what the courts are talking about if you look at the hacker case in california what you see is that the courts are saying there really is no rational relationship between pure humiliation and rehabilitation for punishment and i think with the hacker court said is that to the extent that there is a punishment component or to the extent that there might be some rehabilitation detriment and the problems and the history of why we don't do this far outweigh whatever benefit there might be five eighty three section authorizing district judge to impose discretionary conditions of supervised release we also believe it is violent about the constitution because my time is brief i wish to focus on the  district court attempted to drop a parallel between this condition and deterrence and rehabilitation and the course on words evidence that punishment you look at the act of the record on page twenty three twenty five thirty one thirty eight and forty four the district court in practice is impermissible intact and united states  historical and a student putting someone in the stockade or putting someone in a polar it's a forced public shaming in a public coming in going where it's setting up a forum for high schoolers where i spend it could give a lecture for it is different i would have a problem with him requiring the defendant to say certain words but it is different it's different because the act of forcing someone to wear a condom and ringing a bell is more directly correlated to putting someone in a stockade and a classroom where a bunch of students are going to be listening to the equivalent of a my understanding your honor is that there's no way to require victim to meet with gemma tara and since there's no way to require that a victim to speak to him and to explain to him what effect this had on do your honor he's required to undergo drug rehabilitation drug treatment program drug testing as well as reasonable searches to see whether he's possessing drugs you have to admit this is more jerry springer the learn it is an unusual condition of supervised release why would we want to encourage distributors to do this the district court in this case was looking at someone who is not a hopeless case and he wants to find a way to help that it's to help this defendant to bring its defendant around when you look at his criminal history the crimes committed are crimes that are either essentially victimless or were he never comes in a face to face contact with his victim which what would let most of us think this is not such a bad thing i'm not really hurting anybody if the district court can find a way to explain to them in terror that there really are people who are hurt by this there's a real reason that we consider this to be criminal hard act and perhaps that will discourage them in terror from committing similar acts in the future it really connect him to the community and gives him a better understanding of what he's done and why people are harmed by that if we were to spin this back for a response and see williams could drop all of th conditions of relief and impose what the year in jail under the guidelines eight months would be the maximum we put him in jail for eight months so i assume he understands that so this is a young man who would rather spend eight months in jail th  putting together the in higher sensing packets from bouncing the length of prison with the length of supervised release said in fact in this case we think it's better to have the defendant started this condition of supervised release and this court has looked tera through this he could have found a way that would be much more stigmatizing and much more punitive would have required him to perform this wearing his briefs he could have required him to stay in gear delhi square or perhaps more damaging to the friend that could require him to do it right where his family and friends were likely to come into contact with him that would have had a much more stigmatizing effect this is actually relatively anonymous it's not connected with his employer with his colleagues with his friends and family unlike in clark where this court upheld a defendant being requires them to publish an apology both in the local newspaper in his employer's newsletter that seems to us to be far more stigmatizing because the people that know that the french are most likely to see that you react that to cut out that snippet and hanging over their cubicles that's much more stigmatizing than people he doesn't know coming by and seeing him wearing wide variety of conditions of supervised release available to them and certainly can't be the case that any time a district court imposes a new condition of supervised release that it's automatically going to be struck down from above because the supervised release that particularly meets that defend and we see that up all the time in sexual offender cases that you are seeing more and more conditions of people rush released that are very carefully tailored to the crime that the defendant committed such as in the where the district court said you can't have any sexually explicit material that's not approved by the probation officer you can't have any on authorized contact with a minor and you can't be within one hundred feet of where minors lawyer people that are like his victims to help him to empathy for those victims whereas it's a different case when someone has already picked out a victim i think crimes that involve face to face contact with victims themselves require different sorts of it's somewhat analogous but we think the registration provisions do more to protect the community against that individual defendant because there's the rose registration requires a photograph  in an apartment complex six months down the road when he might be likely to steal mail again whereas registration for sex offenders it's intended exactly to do that it's intended to notify parents in people in the community that they are they need to be on the lookout for this particular individual and may want to keep their children away from them so we we recognize that in that case the registration is particularly sort of that extra function in this case the deterrent effect we've sort of been assuming that your client would prefer to serve eight more months in jail rather than this one day in other words that's the trade off he would rather take eight more months in jail than one day with the side are you making that representation no no no first of all he got two lines on the first case and when he came back before judge walker on the second case as you might imagine how much additional do you agree with the government that the he could have is with six more additional months is that right know what what's what what is what's what's the risk out there that that's probably the outside risk and the risk to my client and to myself is that we're going to appear before an experienced district judge and have a court action size his discretion i don't see that as a huge risk we're totally prepared young but that there is the potential for six more months of jail time in addition to the ten he's serving versus one day with the sun  know that the issue is is your are you on behalf of your client conscious of the tradeoff here that it's one day with the sign versus a potential additional six months in jail and we have to assume that you would much rather risk six more months in jail and have to have one day with the sun i didn't ask for it in my brief you could just delete the condition without every man  studies on the other end that were presented by the government in their briefing i did want to say one thing about the seriousness of identity theft as an issue in society and that's part of the danger that i presented to someone who has to stand in front of a post office in a public place wearing that kind of sandwich board people are very nervous and angry about that type of thing and it does present a real danger to have mr jermyn tara in that situation  that's part of the problem with this i think the government makes an argument for us when it stands up here and says that there's no real not going to be any harm to mr jermyn tara because there is no between him and his conduct and the people that we would expect to be at the post office that's exactly the point he's not going to come into contact with his victims there is no rehabilitation here and there is no protection of the public and that's exactly why megan's law withstands scrutiny because it does protect the public you know very real and tangible way people can now go to an internet site or whatever some new person moves into their neighborhood and they can identify whether or not this person is an offender that they should be aware of and that protects the public there's no protection of the public here if i may ask for district court to have full discretion i understand that there are some people in this country that think that there is some benefit to humiliation but i think that most people agree if you merely nation should not play any role in this country in our criminal justice versus energy versus your energy versus tom's or all counsel present in that case