Your point is well made. Sadly, it often happens that guys will take the seemingly "easy" route and simply plead guilty to the charges alleged against them. This is often a mistake, sometimes a horrible one.

Like Senator Craig, they may have their reasons: My understanding is Sen. Craig (somewhat unrealistically)hoped to avoid the publicity that would surround his arrest and prosecution. Allegedly, he did this without obtaining legal advice. Indeed, an experienced attorney would probably have advised him that this was going to be discovered anyway, and that he had a winnable case. There had been long-term stories about the right-wing Senator's tearoom proclivities, and the arresting agency offered a quick way to dispose of the matter. It just didn't work for the Senator, and it generally doesn't work for anyone else either.

Arrest and conviction records are public records.

We have an adversarial system of justice. Prosecutors and police are not constituted or inclined to assist cruisers in any way. To the contrary, I have seen ill-advised early guilty pleas, whether taken for resons of embarassment, ignorance, or ease, adversely affect people's lives for years.

Once a plea is knowingly entered, it generally stays entered. The court will not make detailed inquiries into the underlying facts, but leaves the decision to enter a plea, or not, to the defendant. In the Craig case, once the plea became publicized, only then did he seek to set it aside.

It is important to note that guilty pleas are rarely vacated. Therefore, they should only be entered after consultation with legal counsel and with full appreciation of all ramifications, pro and con, of entry of a plea.

Quote |