In the recent list of presidential pardons http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/28/national/w154421D64.DTL there seem some very minor offenses committed a long time ago. Why do they bother trying to get a pardon (is it expunged off their record?) and how does one do it (just write to Bush?)
Applications for pardons and other forms of executive clemency are first considered by Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice. The DOJ makes its recommendation to the President, who has final say in issuing any celemency.
As to why people seek pardons for offenses for which they’ve already served time, there are tangible benefits beyond a sense of personal exoneration. A full pardon restores certain rights that can be lost as a result of a federal conviction, such as the right to vote, serve on juries, to hold public office and others.
Not to mention not having to put it down on a job application. Imagine being a big-shot CEO and getting convicted (either rightly or wrongly) of imbezzlement. Try getting a decent job after that.
thanks flurb for the answers
It shouldn’t put too much of a damper on their dreams, since they would probably just go work for another slimeball CEO who also had a prior conviction. 
After reading over that list, the ‘why’ question that occurs to me is, what is the rationale by which these people deserve pardons (and more saliently, not every crook does)?
E.g., the mineworker’s union guy who bombed the WV coal mine doesn’t seem to have been innocent (correct me if this is wrong). If such a criminal can get pardoned after being convicted and serving his time, why not your basic purse-snatcher?
I know the immediate answer is because the system allows it, and the people with influence take advantage of it. I guess I’m asking why no one in government suggests eliminating it, or at least tightening it up.
Ford’s pardoning of Nixon could at least be argued to have served the national interest, in sparing the country a painful trial. And last year, the Senate sponsored a measure to (posthumously) pardon former boxing champion Jack Johnson, who was convicted of violating the Mann Act, but was essentially prosecuted for marrying a white woman: lawmakers today recognize that the prosecution of Johnson was unjust and racist, and pardoning Johnson is an acknowledgement of this. I can understand this rationale.
I remember the outcry in 2001 when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and all those others, many on his last day in office. I also remember some odious people pardoned by GHWB (google “Aslam Adam”).
Should presidential pardons be subjected to more scrutiny? Sorry if this is too much of a hijack – maybe I should start another thread?