Guilty means Guilty! ... Really?

John Ibbitson writes in Wednesday's Globe and Mail with respect to Larry Craig: (and don't bother with the link, it's behind their silly subscription wall)

 

"Sorry Senator: Once you plead guilty to an offense, you admit to the truth of the allegation. We can argue over whether the sting operation was harassment, but Larry Craig can't claim innocence. He's guilty as sin, as he admitted in open court."

 

Notice how de jure became de facto there?  I guess Ibbitson would be just as quick to swear to the high heavens that OJ was actually not guilty. After all, an open court found him not guilty AND he plead not guilty.

 

The fact is that MILLIONS of people in front of MANY courts have pled guilty for a MULTITUDE of offenses that they didn't actually believe they were guilty of. When I briefly worked as a lawyer, I watched people in the Brampton courthouse plead guilty to spousal abuse just to get back in their house and others who would plead guilty to sexual assault rather than go to trial to argue "honest but mistaken belief". Oh sure, they would say the right things to their lawyer and their judge but the fact is that for money or reputational reasons people plead guilty without FEELING guilty all the time.  I know they have to tell the judge they really did it and they're really sorry. But when someone wants to make a problem go away, one often does so.   

 

That doesn't mean that Larry Craig is innocent. He probably isn't. But saying that someone is actually guilty because they pled guilty is either deliberately disingenuous or highly naive.