How nice. That's what I first thought when I read about Winona Ryder's desire to auction the clothes and accessories she stole from Saks and donate the proceeds to charity.

For a moment there I actually felt sorry for her. So she shoplifted - it's a sickness, for goodness' sake. Look how she's turning her personal tragedy into an opportunity to benefit the needy.

But as I said, my pity and benefit-of-the-doubt attitude was short-lived.

Just as I was picturing the to-be-auctioned items in my mind's eye and wondering which I'd bid on - the Frederick Fekkai hair bows and bands, perhaps, or the $80 Donna Karan cashmere socks, or the $750 white Yves Saint Laurent blouse - I was reminded of a little fact: The items the actress is so generously offering to sell to benefit the poor are 16 months old, which, in fashion years, is so last season.

So even assuming Winona liked the clothes she shoplifted - and her attorney insisted at trial she didn't - she certainly wouldn't be caught dead wearing them now. A Marc Jacobs sweater from the 2002 collection? Please. What would Mr. Blackwell say?

Incredibly, Winona's lawyer virtually admitted as much at a hearing Monday in front of Beverly Hills Superior Court Judge Elden Fox.

Trying to convince the judge to allow the auction - something he's reluctant to do - attorney Mark Geragos put forth this argument, ``It seems awfully silly to take thousands of dollars of merchandise and burn it in a bonfire.''

Burn it. And I thought I had trouble dealing with clothes I never want to see again.

Which gives me an idea. I know Winona has completed the community service part of her probation - and ahead of schedule, too - but if she really wants to show contrition and at the same time curry favor with the moviegoing public, why not prove that she is willing to live like the rest of us, at least for a while?

Winona should be forced by court order to keep the shoplifted clothes and hang them in the front of her closet. Not only would they take up valuable space, but she, like the majority of American women, would be tortured day and night by the sight of unworn overpriced garments that she just had to have. Heck, she was willing to break the law to get them.

I don't know about you, but I was surprised to learn that Winona still had the controversial clothes. I assumed Saks would have seized them after conviction, but who knows what happened? Maybe after her trial Winona tried to return the items but was rebuffed.

Here's how it could have gone down:

Winona (holding an enormous bag of designer clothing and headbands): ``I'd like to return these, please.''

Saks clerk: ``I'm going to need to see a driver's license and a receipt.''

Winona: ``I don't have a receipt. I just want to return them.''

Clerk: ``I'm sorry. I can't help you.''

As you may remember, Winona stole $5,500 worth of clothes (and, it turns out, was forced to pay $10,000 in fines and restitution for them). Her lawyer said if she's allowed to fence the items at auction, she could raise $100,000.

Think about that. One hundred thousand dollars from just $5,500! She's not just a great actress but a financial wizard, too. If Hollywood is chilly to her, she always could find a job on Wall Street.