public confessions

Recently, well several decades recently, not a few (considering their position) people have been forced to make public confessions (a notorious one, having difficulty with the word "is," refused to confess). Most of these confessions have to do with moral turpitude, which in the USA means some presumably untoward sexual behavior is involved. I guess those whose morals fell short in other areas are found guilty in a court or make a deal and confess before a judge; all of these receive punishment. The public confessions serve to avoid more serious consequences than public humiliation though they often are followed by resignation. Some confessions, having to do with "my life before" occur in autobiographies on the assumption that it "cleans the slate." When accompanied by a "turning to God" (e.g. G.W.) we may nolonger take the "life before" into account. But in the other cases, the prison sentence or the loss of a job eliminates the need to trust these people again. [Or so one assumes. I read in the NYtimes 9-28-08, that while Abramoff is serving, the Chair of the Senate Indian affairs Comm. is gambling at the casinos that benefitted from the lobbying and the Comm.'s actions. Apparently the Chair is either lucky or knows his way around as he appears to win when he plays.] Whatever happens in relationship after a public confession in which an innocent partner is present - and humiliated - is not my concern. [But the same NYT helped the curious with an article about the former Gov. of New York.]
Yesterday I heard another public confession repeated: "We Republicans came to Washington in 1994 to reform the system, but the system reformed us." The confessor didn't have to be that hard on himself, for most Republicans , including the confessing Sen. from Arizona, had already been part of the system [see above at Abramoff] for many years and they probably initiated the newly elected ones to the system, if only by the example given and hich continued until the possibility of running for President emerged once again after 2004. My question is:

Can we or SHOULD WE TRUST A BORN-AGAIN "REFORMER" or apply the old saying about the leopard and its spots?

Addendum: Today, Oct. 6 there was another confession (not very voluntary and partly a defense rather than a mea culpa). The CEO of the defunct Lehman Bros. confronted with a chart of his compensation since 2000 (figures provided by L-B) emphasized that he still had 10million shares that were now worthless and that the compensation was actually closer to 300+ rather than 480,000,000 as per the figures provided while his compensation in cash had been only 60,000,000. The the question whether he thought that fair in view of the total loss of the shareholders' investment: no response, but he felt very bad for them. As to who decided on his compensation he said it was a committee, appointed by another committee, though he believed that as CEO he had an important say in the nominationg process.

Addendum: Summer 2013: The former Governor of New York tried to make a political comeback by running for City Controller. He lost. Might he have won if in the same primary season Anthony Weiner, an obsessed twit who continued in his odd behavior even after his earlier confession (and incidental humiliation of his wife who literally stood by him) had not run for mayor and thus brought the focus back to his "peccadillos."