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

Yes, citizens should be able to elect whomever they want to represent them, without limitations - even a horse!

No, if crime shows a negative and corrupted character

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

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

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.

No, if politicians are being investigated they should be on unpaid leave and paid if not convicted. They should be allowed in also if not convicted.

Depends on the mortal and person background whatever they are seeking for righteousness or corruption. Second chances are important if people learn their lesson to be better

Yes. No however If said person committed the crime whilst still in office, or if the crime is a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime.

No, and if politicians have been accused of committing a crime they should be force to have unpaid time off till proven innocent. If guilty they shall never enter government every again

Yes, so long as they have finished serving their sentence and have demonstrated repentance/genuine penitence

It depends, but I think if the crime was serious, they should not be allowed to run because people need to trust their leaders. However, if they have changed and done good things since then, maybe they deserve a second chance.

Yes, so long it was not indictable or incompatible with the responsibilities of the office, and they are currently not under investigation.

as long as it was not a violent crime, or committed while in office. our politicians should be above reproach.

Yes, but it depends on the severity of the crime, and if there is any doubt that the politician actually committed it

Depends on the crime in question. If it is something relevant then no such as embezzling, taking bribes or even rape then no. Smaller things that are at least 7 years ago then yes they should be able to. It would be too easy to be used as a political tool

Yes, provided it was not an indictable offense, they are not currently under investigation and any record is disclosed.

So long as as the crimes was not committed while in office and have finished serving their sentence.

As long as they have finished serving their sentence and have changed and are under watch, yes, they should have the chance to change the line of their life

No, only if it has been an acceptable period of time since their sentence was served, and their crime wasn't financial.

It should be case by case , depends on the crime , the capacity to reflect and how long ago it was. The persons conduct should be monitored though.

Yes they should be allowed because if we use Donald Trump as an example America is doing really well

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)

depends how bad the crime is

depends what they were convicted for.

Yes, as long as written statements from at least three psychologists are provided to prove that they are fit to run

I believe anyone who has committed any serious crimes should not even be allowed to vote so long as it has been verified to be true. As there is such a thing as false and wrongful convictions. If they are convicted for violent crimes, fraud, felonies or sexual crimes then no they should not be allowed to run for office so long as it was a rightful conviction. If they just stole a packet of cigarettes or they were forced to commit crimes for survival then maybe so long as they have cleaned up their act and have a now respectable track record that proves that they have not and will not commit any more crimes.

it fully depends on what the crime was and they shpuld submit to testing type things and be under survelliance

Depends on the crime and if they’ve shown real reform; people deserve second chances, but public trust matters.

If the country does not provide a good environment for ex-convicts, then a politician should not be given the same as well. However, if the country does provide a good environment for ex-convicts, then it is possible for the politician to be given a second chance.

Again - as many as one in six are 'wrongfully convicted' - ESPECIALLY in our convict colony start-up society where there are guards and 'citizens', and all citizens are wrong at whim. As things stand and have stood for generations, anyone could be made into a 'criminal' without real reason.

it depends only because if the crime has affected the business or they committed a serious crime i wouldn't let them run for office

Yes, as long as they have finished their sentence, and has had a waiting period between the sentence and getting elected.

Yes, so long as it was not a felony, violent or sexual crime, are under investigation for said crime or it was a crime that affects their integrity in office

Yes, as long as the voters are aware at the time of voting: voters should not be deprived of their choice to be represented by whoever they like - even a horse if they so choose...

People can change, if there is no question the individual in question has grown and moved on from that portion of their life then yes, but this also depends on the crime if it was a political crime then no.

No, unless it was a crime that was deemed to be committed for the greater good. For example, a person who was convicted whilst protesting an environmental issue.

As long as it has passed a certain period of time and can be deemed as a past mistake. Thus, they have changed.

Depends on the crime in question. If it is something relevant (embezzling, taking bribes etc.) or major then no. Smaller things that are at least 7 years ago then yes they should be able to. It would be too easy to be used as a political tool

It depends on the crime, and the system that found them guilty. People silenced by a corrupt regime should definitely not be excluded from office.

Yes, as long as they finish their sentence (not sexual, robbery, or murder) and under strict supervision.

yes, but they need to finished sentence, and need to assesed if they are suitable for such a role. Also, dependign on the degree of crime.

If they're were convicted for trying to do right by the country and it was a method to silence them, I think they should be first on the list to run the country.

Yes, after a period of time and depending on the crime, i.e. if a past crime is not related to causing physical harm to a person or animal with internet.

Depending on the severity of the crime, and the general public should be made aware of all details and information regarding the crime including dates, people involved and evidence.

Yes if it was a non violent crime or a crime not relating to corruption or fraud so only if it was like drug possession or minor theft

Only if crime was in the past and that they have not re-engaged in crime again, only if not a violent crime.

Yes, as long as they're conviction is considered spent (after 10 years) and it isn't a sexual, violent or financial crime.

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

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

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

as long as its not a severe crime

The constitutional requirements are fine

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 as the crime was not a violent or heinous crime, and plenty of scrutiny to weed out any possible wrongly convicted is necessary

If its a serious crime such as murder or fraud than no, but if its small, and it happened a long time ago, than yes

Yes/No; the circumstances surrounding the criminal history of an individual, who intends to run for parliament, should be fully vetted prior to the acceptance/approval of their application, and or nomination, in order to exclude individuals convicted of serious offenses. Thereafter, those successfully progressing, through this vetting process, should be then further required to divulge their former convictions/criminal history to the public.

Yes, asa long as have finished serving sentence and Must provide proof of upright peaceful lifestyle at least 3 years.

If the crime affects Australians and living than, absolutely not, but if the crime was small and they didn't have a long sentence, that should be fine

Should depend on when and the type of conviction/offence. Multiple speeding fines doesn’t really constitute a hard criminal.

Yes, if it happened over 10 years ago and they have had a clean slate ever since, an investigation should be conducted, They must have finished the sentence.

Depends on the crime they committed, their intention with the crime; and what persuaded them to commit the crime.

Yes- If they're were convicted for trying to do right by the country and it was a method to silence them, I think they should be first on the list to run the country.

No, but measures must be in place to exempt minor crimes. Corruption, violent crime, domestic abuse etc should disqualify politicians

Depending in the crime, the severity and when it was committed. For instance, if it were committed during their youth and the crime was minor non-violent robbery, and they are reformed, I believe they should be allowed the opportunity

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.

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.

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