I am aware that there is a factual question about how long Craig actually stared into the stall. But the bottom line is that no charge was brought. I have already assumed Craig to be "guilty" in that I believe he was seeking a homosexual encounter but I am not willing to conclude his guilt of a crime that even the policeman who stung him was not willing to charge.
He already admitted guilt.
posted on 08/31/2007 4:21:37 PM PDT
he was not charged with looking into the stall. He did not plead guilty to that. I do not have it before me but if you read the disorderly conduct ordinance it has absolutely nothing to do with the facts in this case.
He pled because he made a judgment that was the best way out for him. His problem was not the criminal liability which might attach even for solicitation, his problem was the loss of his Senate seat which would ensue in the wake of notoriety. That is why he pled. And that is why he chose to plead to an ordinance which had nothing to do with homosexuality.
This is the problem with this case and with our approach in the law to these matters.
posted on 08/31/2007 4:29:41 PM PDT
("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson