Should a politician, who has been formerly convicted of a crime, be allowed to run for office?

yes, as long as the crime was minor and properly looked into/ extra support behind the scenes to be more closely watched

No, if crime shows a negative and corrupted character

Yes, as long as the crime was not committed during office and the sentence is complete

Not unless the case can be fully ensured to have been done fairly and without bias. This involves making the evidence and legal procedure transparent and accessible to the public.

They should be able to because in recent years we have seen political parties weaponise the justice system to try and prevent rivals from being able to qualify for elections. The people should be able to vote and if their crimes are detestable leave that for the public to decide.

Yes, depending on the seriousness of the crime and as long as they have finished serving their sentence

i think they should as long as it wasnt a sexual offence or aanything in the office or a serious serious crime

It depends on the crime, the nature of it and if they seem to have tried to use it as a lesson to not repeat there same mistake in future

It should be inline with the incorporations act. Cannot be if you are convicted of sn indictable offence.

Yes, but with restrictions in place to allow certain misdemeanours and felonies and disallow more serious ones that breach humanitarian rights and harm innocent people needlessly.

Depends on what the crime was, and i believe I’d it’s bad enough they should take a psych evaluation. But things like rape, murder, armed robbery, burglary, hostage taking, etc. if some one has committed any of those crimes, they shouldn’t be allowed to help run a nation.

yes if the crime was non volient or sexual and there are signs that they have change and/ or regret their actions

Yes, as long as it was no a felony, violent, financial, dishonesty or sexual crime and was committed 10+ years prior to running

Yes, as long as the offending was over a certain period of time in the past and was not a fraud or abuse of office offense

yes but if they changed they could ask for a vote every ten years after the crime or previously asking for the vote buy the party they want the can not make there own party or lead it though the only thing the they could lead is local government

Yes, as long as they have served their time and the offence is not one that would influence their ability

It depends on the crime. If it relates to violence, any form of felony or financial crime then they shouldn't be allowed.

Yes Depending on the crime and whether they're likely to recommit crimes again.

depending how large the crime is eg murder

No, but only if it is for a serious crime (not a minor infringement)

as long as its not a severe crime

The constitutional requirements are fine

Yes, as long as their sentence or probation has been finished, it was not violent, financial, sexual or severe in nature and they are not under concurrent investigation.

Depends entirely on the crime and the circumstances. Multiple violent crimes with no sign of remorse or change in behaviour? No

Only if their position within government would allow them to commit more crimes, corruption for example

Yes if the person didn't do any sussy things with children or assault any people as well as doing drugs

Yes, as long as their conviction has been spent, that it was not committed while in office and as it wasn't a violent, financial, or sexual crime or a crime against children.

Yes, but they need to disclose this crime and all evidence, documents, etc., involved in the conviction

Dependant on the circumstances of said crime and when it was conducted, crimes whilst in office, no tolerance if convicted.

Yes, as long as they have fully served their time and the crime was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual, as well as, they have changed as a person. If they haven't changed then no.

As long as the crime was not committed while in office. And as long as it wasn’t a violent, financial or sexual crime.

yes, but only if they have served their sentence and the crime was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime.

No, unless the conviction was when they were under the age of 24, and was not a violent, sexual, felony or financial crime.

Yes, provided sentence has been served and it was not a violent, sexual, or financial crime.

ADDITIONALLY:
In general, process and punishments for hiding/denying information that is relevant to the public (e.g. criminal history) should be incredibly punished and trigger immediate suspensions once the evidence exists. Transparency over perfection.

I couldn't do multiple choice but the first 3 boxes are important factors if someone who has been convicted of a crime should run for office

they should be able to as long as the crime isn't serious
such as treason,murder,terrorism or bank robbery

if the person in question committed the crime when they were younger
as long as it isn't serious then they should be able to run for office.

Yes, within limits. Those limits should be tougher for crimes at higher risk of occurring in their role (fraud, embezzlement) and for more egregious crimes (sexual assault, murder).

Yes, as long as they have rehabilitated back into society and show no signs of commiting a crime again

Disallow for severe crimes, and anyone under a current investigation should have to wait until proceedings conclude

not if is to do with sexual assult or money frud

Yes, as long as the usual back ground check will occur as well as them finishing their sentence and not murder

Matters the crime

if they have finsished their sentence and it was not commited in the office. also it cannot be a violent, financial or sexual crime.

If they have actually changed

Yes, so long as 1) they have finished serving their sentence 2) the crime was not committed in the office 3) it was not a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime

Yes, as long they have finishes serving their sentence and the crime was not committed while in office.

Yes, depending on the crime, I believe they should be excused. (excluding severe cases like sexual misconduct, manslaughter, etc)

It depends on the crime and how long ago they've commit it, e.g. committing a crime 20 years ago as a kid and they now know that was entirely wrong.

I believe if a politician was convicted of a crime, I believe that the people working within the space or area of the politician, should be aware and take extra procurations.

Yes, as long as it was not a sexual crime and doesn't open concerns about interfering with democracy or individual rights

Yes depending on how bad the crime was.

If proven guilty for crime, no. If innocent and proven worth and name, yes.

Yes, depending on the severity and nature of the crime as some criminal records are for minor or irrelevant offences.

Yes, after a decade of good behaviour with no major crimes committed.

TO a degree

Yes but there should be minimal offence crimes

Yes, so long as they have finished serving their sentence, the crime was not committed in the office, and it was not a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime

No but should have a system of severity of what convictions

Depends on the nature of the offence and how long ago it was.

As long as their crime is made public for others to know

No, probably. Usually we're not talking about irrelevant crimes here. The specific situatuon will matter, but if you have to ask...

it depends on what sort of crime they have committed.

Yes, as long as they do not re-offend

as long as it was when they were a child and its not a felony, violent, financial or a sexual crime and they have served their time

not until they have showed forgiveness.

nothing to do with money or corruption

Depends on the crime. Laws are subject to change, so long as it wasn't murder or sexual in nature.

Depending on what they did and the age of the crime.

depends on the circumstance of the crime convicted and how bad it was , but again no politician should run an office with a criminal history

depends on what the charge was for

Depends on the severity of the crime. Everyone deserves a second chance.

Yes, depending on the type of crime

Yes, as long as proof of them changing is shown

as long as it wasn't a violent financial or sexual crime

Yes and as long as they have finished serving their sentence. But, disallow them who are under investigation for a crime.

I feel like the office and other people should discuss if they should run first, to see if their crime was as bad.

As long as they have shown a change in their behaviour

Depends on what the crime is, if it has the potential to damage a society then no

dpends on crime

dpends wha they were convicted for

Depending on the crime, if it is something like stealing bread or something small, yes, if rape no.

As long as their remorseful for it

Subjective and relevant to the category of offence

It depends on how big the crime was

Yes, but it also depends on the crime if it's serious probably NO!

yes, depends how bad the crime was

Yes, depending on the crime committed as long as they have reformed and finished their sentence.

Yes, if they have turned their lives around

More politicians should be convicted and procedures for their crimes

Yes, as long as the crime is not going to effect their tenure. Example: a politician who has swindled money should not be allowed to take office where finances are concerned.

Yes, but the public and everyone should know of the crime and consider that when making important decisions.

Show signs of rehabilitation & not while in office

Yes, but this should be considered on a case by case basis, within reason.

Yes, as long as they have a proven record of being a reformed character

Yes, if it is 10+ yeah and sentence has been served.

Depending on how long ago the crime was committed, what the crime was (something stupid done as a teenager or an abuse of authority) and whether that behaviour reflects in them now (this is kind of hard to tell as it can be somewhat concealed). Allow the citizens to make up their minds on their own as other runners may be just as bad or worse in terms of policy and endangering people. Sort of encompasses all of the above options.

Yes, if they have made positive changes depending on the crime

Any crime that is, felony that is a political crime, sexual abuse, or financial crime as well as violent.

The current law on this is adequate