Just wanted to post a link to this op-ed from the Alameda Sun, since someone on my Facebook page asked if any attention would be given to piece. It was an eloquent defense of Stewart Chen which said exactly what I wanted to write (except for the part about voting for him and being interested in voting for him again) albeit with a lot more gravitas and conviction.
This part is especially quote worthy:
Something that happened 20 minutes ago may be relevant and probative. Something that happened 20 years ago may be relevant, but it is certainly not probative of anything at this time. Time, in fact, does make a difference. The very foundation of the procedure in California to expunge a conviction from one’s record is the belief that one can be rehabilitated and, therefore, should be given a second chance, free and clear of that conviction.
Expunging (a conviction from a record) is not automatic; it has to be earned. Did Chen earn a second chance? By fact of your own reporting, the answer is a resounding “yes.” Since (his conviction in) 1993, Chen has neither been further disciplined by the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners; nor has he suffered any further arrests or convictions. He has demonstrated rehabilitation by staying clear of the board and the criminal justice system.
Which is kinda what I said, but, again, much much less eloquently.
There’s some legal reasoning in the op-ed about why the plea deal was the best bet for Stewart Chen which is worth a glance as well.
Surprisingly though, in the comments section of the Alameda Sun, no one decided to question the Judge’s fitness as a parent after his penning of that vigorous defense of Stewart Chen. Imagine that.