Would you apologize for something you did that was wrong, but wasn’t really a crime? In a hall in 1974, Charles Colson, the former special-counsel to President Nixon, presents a powerful speech defending his innocence of the Watergate charges pressed upon him. In the middles of the speech he accidently slips and says he was innocent of many of the charges. All of a sudden he realizes what he said, and caught himself, and says all of the charges, but the power of his speech is gone. Thankfully no one noticed it – there was nothing about it in the press – but he keeps wondering ‘many of the charges, but not all, Chuck?’ He realizes he is guilty of one thing (even though no one would think it was a crime), supplying derogatory information about Mr. Ellsberg to the press while he was under indictment. After much deliberation, he resolves to plead guilty even if no one thinks it is right. Everyone agrees that Colson smeared Ellsberg. Some say he should not have pleaded guilty for that, others believe the contrary. It was a good idea for Colson to plead guilty to smearing Ellsberg for three reasons: he was innocent of Watergate, he would be standing for truth, and he would have a true conversion experience.…show more content… They say it wasn’t a real crime. They argue this because no one had been convicted for it before. This is true, but inadequate, because even though Colson knew it wasn’t a legal crime, he also knew that it was a sin that should have an apology. They also argue that people wouldn’t like it. Shapiro, Colson’s lawyer thought he was crazy, and the Judge and the prosecuting team thought it was utterly ridiculous. This is true, but inadequate, because Colson felt it was the right thing to do. Both of these reasons, that it wasn’t a real crime, and that people wouldn’t like it are inadequate, because smearing Ellsberg’s image was a sin, and pleading guilty was the right thing to
