The U.S. constitution does not prevent convicted felons from holding the office of the President or a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives. States may prevent convicted felons candidates from holding statewide and local offices.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
Federal Electorate:
Local Government Area:
@9SB2X2Y8mos8MO
Yes, depends on the severity of the crime and the circumstances regarding both the context and the trial process, (ie. if it's biased)
@8J23FV24yrs4Y
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.
@B4B9G5P5 days5D
Yes, citizens should be able to elect whomever they want to represent them, without limitations - even a horse!
@B497RZL7 days7D
So long as as the crimes was not committed while in office and have finished serving their sentence.
@B494M8K7 days7D
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
@B3BKXMY 1mo1MO
No, only if it has been an acceptable period of time since their sentence was served, and their crime wasn't financial.
@B38NKQX1mo1MO
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.
@B35758N1mo1MO
Yes they should be allowed because if we use Donald Trump as an example America is doing really well
@9WGQCN55mos5MO
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.
@9W7FMBV6mos6MO
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.
@9W777FY6mos6MO
yes if the crime was non volient or sexual and there are signs that they have change and/ or regret their actions
@9W2V6GN6mos6MO
Yes, as long as it was no a felony, violent, financial, dishonesty or sexual crime and was committed 10+ years prior to running
@9VVQR2D6mos6MO
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
@9VPLWK56mos6MO
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
@9FS974Z2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as they have served their time and the offence is not one that would influence their ability
@9FR6STF2yrs2Y
It depends on the crime. If it relates to violence, any form of felony or financial crime then they shouldn't be allowed.
@9FFQK5S2yrs2Y
Yes Depending on the crime and whether they're likely to recommit crimes again.
@9F9CKTW2yrs2Y
depending how large the crime is eg murder
No, but only if it is for a serious crime (not a minor infringement)
@9F8DGHT2yrs2Y
as long as its not a severe crime
@9DZ667Q2yrs2Y
The constitutional requirements are fine
@92TTJ8B3yrs3Y
depends what they were convicted for.
@B434SMK2wks2W
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.
@B433THX2wks2W
Depends on the crime they committed, their intention with the crime; and what persuaded them to commit the crime.
@B3XHHSXOne Nation3wks3W
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.
@B3XHHSXOne Nation3wks3W
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.
@B2XNM472mos2MO
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.
@B2W9Y9G2mos2MO
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
@B2MMP8C2mos2MO
Only if crime was in the past and that they have not re-engaged in crime again, only if not a violent crime.
@B2GTGBX 3mos3MO
Yes, as long as they're conviction is considered spent (after 10 years) and it isn't a sexual, violent or financial crime.
@B2CRG6DOne Nation3mos3MO
No, but measures must be in place to exempt minor crimes. Corruption, violent crime, domestic abuse etc should disqualify politicians
@B28SZVM3mos3MO
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.
@9ZNMKQBNew Liberal5mos5MO
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.
@9WV63JD5mos5MO
Yes, depending on the seriousness of the crime and as long as they have finished serving their sentence
@9THRZLC7mos7MO
Depends entirely on the crime and the circumstances. Multiple violent crimes with no sign of remorse or change in behaviour? No
@9TC8BJTIndependent7mos7MO
Only if their position within government would allow them to commit more crimes, corruption for example
@9SSPBLJ7mos7MO
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.
@9PZRMRJ9mos9MO
Yes, but they need to disclose this crime and all evidence, documents, etc., involved in the conviction
@9PK5ZYX10mos10MO
Dependant on the circumstances of said crime and when it was conducted, crimes whilst in office, no tolerance if convicted.
@9P5SQM410mos10MO
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.
@9LXVFS811mos11MO
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.
@9KWZK7X1yr1Y
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).
@9H7CPBW1yr1Y
Yes, as long as they have rehabilitated back into society and show no signs of commiting a crime again
@9GCGPFW1yr1Y
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
if they have finsished their sentence and it was not commited in the office. also it cannot be a violent, financial or sexual crime.
@8HG3RKF4yrs4Y
If they have actually changed
@99GT84B2yrs2Y
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, provided it is not an indictable offence, violent, financial or sexual crime, it has been publicly disclosed, they have finished serving their sentence and they are currently not under investigation.
Yes, however, there needs to be a process and approval prior to running for office to ensure it will not be an area of conflict
@9WK3YJP5mos5MO
i think they should as long as it wasnt a sexual offence or aanything in the office or a serious serious crime
@9N5W8ST10mos10MO
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.
@9HQKNW61yr1Y
Yes, as long as it was not a sexual crime and doesn't open concerns about interfering with democracy or individual rights
@8HSMS754yrs4Y
Yes depending on how bad the crime was.
@9BPDFLY2yrs2Y
If proven guilty for crime, no. If innocent and proven worth and name, yes.
@9BPBYRM2yrs2Y
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.
@99Z72SX2yrs2Y
Yes but there should be minimal offence crimes
@99Z4Y5H2yrs2Y
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
@99Z5M2K2yrs2Y
No but should have a system of severity of what convictions
Depends on the nature of the offence and how long ago it was.
@99YKJQF2yrs2Y
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.
@96JKTGC2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as they do not re-offend
@96GW6XR2yrs2Y
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.
@9673GDD2yrs2Y
nothing to do with money or corruption
@965VQK23yrs3Y
Depends on the crime. Laws are subject to change, so long as it wasn't murder or sexual in nature.
@964T8ZC3yrs3Y
Depending on what they did and the age of the crime.
@95J7SZ33yrs3Y
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
@95J6FWN3yrs3Y
depends on what the charge was for
@95DKJGY3yrs3Y
Depends on the severity of the crime. Everyone deserves a second chance.
@95CHNM73yrs3Y
Yes, depending on the type of crime
@947ZBPV3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as proof of them changing is shown
@946ZKY23yrs3Y
as long as it wasn't a violent financial or sexual crime
@942VKVG3yrs3Y
Yes and as long as they have finished serving their sentence. But, disallow them who are under investigation for a crime.
@93Z3CH43yrs3Y
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
@93Y5QK83yrs3Y
Depends on what the crime is, if it has the potential to damage a society then no
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.