I never understand why judges are able to get away with this under the 8th amendment. Don’t get me wrong, it can be very useful to let the punishment fit the crime. But there it is in black and white, and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. I highly doubt wearing an idiot sign is usual.
In my college days I used to type up old federal court cases for electronic scanning. One case I came across involved a man who, as part of a "creative" sentence was instructed by the judge to wear a sign that read "I am a thief" (or some such; I can't remember the exact offense). He successfully challenged the the sentence on the grounds that no government entity can force a person to admit guilt to a crime, even if he's been found guilty in a court of law. To allow such a thing would mean that an individual could be coerced into a confession, or denied the ability to appeal. I'm not surprised that there aren't more such challenges, though. Most people, given a choice between wearing such a sign or serving a jail sentence would swallow their scruples and choose the former.
She only got 30 days revocation of her driver’s license. The judge might have told her she was going to get 6 months revocation unless she agreed to wear that “i am an idiot” sign. I would definitely take such an offer even though you say it is not legal form of punishment.
it also violates the First amendment’s freedom of speech clause (freedom of speech includes the right not to be forced to speak)
but nevertheless it is a very fitting punishment
It has to be cruel AND unusual. Embarrassing, yes, but not cruel.
In the few instances Ive read it seems the judge usually give an option. “A month in jail or a week in jail and 3 weeks wearing a sign around town that states youre a moron. Which is it?”