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

Depends on the circumstances. The person might be a member of a marginalized group and convicted out of hate and inequities in the society & justice system.

Depends on the severity of the offence

There needs to be an exhaustive list of unacceptable crimes. Also, "felony" is an American term and doesn't belong here.

depending on how bad the charge is and what is was for, for example if it was impaired driving or jaywalking i believe it would be okay. but if it were to be armed robbery or murder, i do not believe that person should have the right.

Yes, but it depends on the nature of the crime that was committed and cannot be committed while in office.

Yes as long as they are finished serving BUT I do think it depends on what the crime is. If it's ex. murder or rape then NO WAY should you be allowed to run for office.

It depends on how severe the crime was as well as if there is standing proof that they have changed. Then yes.

Depends on the crime if you had like a speeding ticket yes but if your committed a really bad crime no.

Depends what it is. People as kids or youth make mistakes. If they had committed a crime, it wasn’t a persons offence, sexual, or fraudulent and they have done their time then yes.

i think that if they comitted a victimless crime they can run, but if they did crimes that harmed other people they should not run for office.

As long as its not a felony ,financial or sexual crime and they have been finished serving thier sentence and are pleaded not guilty however I believe they should be able to run for office for a minimum of 2 years after the crime

No, only if the crime was not major (felony, violent, financial, sexual), and they have already faced charges.

I believe whether a politician convicted of a crime should run for office depends on the severity and context of the offence. Serious crimes like murder or assault can reflect poor judgement and should disqulify them, while minor offences like petty theft should not.

Yes, however the crime's severity should be put in consideration. If the crime is something like theft under $500 let them run after sentence but if the crime is grand larceny then no because they are given to much power in office.

Honestly, it depends on the type of crime. Such as, 1st degree murder vs 3rd degree. (1st degree means it is completely planned and this person should not be running for office. 3rd degree is a bit more accidental, so they could be running for office, however, it will be difficult for them.)

There should be a system in allowing politicians to run for office depending on the severity and public opinion on their criminal record.

Yes, so long as their criminal history does not pose a conflict of interest with holding a political office.

Yes, as long as they have received an official government pardon which determines that they have sufficiently reintegrated and repented.

As long as it was not a violent felony, financial or sexual crime -and- disallow politicians that are under investigation for felonies.

depends on the background of the politician. as some clean collared can be framed in crimes. if not with clean background, free of corruption then such kind of a person should not be allowed.

Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence, and can prove they are capable of moving forward and will not repeat same mistakes. They should also be monitored.

Yes, but it cant be a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime and the have to wait 4-10 years depending on severity

Yes for non felony, violent, financial or sexual crimes as long as the politician has been honest and held accountable for it. If it's been a very long time (20+ years) then any crime as long as its been shown that a change has been made in the person's life and they've held themselves honest and accountable.

I feel like it depends on what crime they did, like if they killed someone than know but if they just got caught with alcohol when they are under 18 and finished serving the sentence then yes,

In many democracies, the eligibility of politicians who had previously been condemned for a crime will depend on the nature of said crime, the time elapsed since the conviction, and any rehabilitation session demonstrated. Usually, the arguments in favour generally revolve around the regulations of redemption, which likely suggest suspects who served sentences should be allowed to participate fully in society. I would jest that this includes holding public office regarding anyone in that position carrying the burden of trust and responsibility. This ultimately led to the decision to allow ex-criminals to run for office as part of matters of law and public policy.

As long as the crime is made public and they have finished serving all their time includung community service etc.

No, and any politician that has received funding, gifts, or any other means of profit from private companies, lobbyists, corperate interests, private energy, religious groups should be under investigation for a crime with possibility of the death penalty

Yes, as long as it has been at least 10 years since their release from prison and if not sent to prison their conviction.

Yes, as long as they severed their sentence and not a violent, financial or sex crime and not committed in office

It depends on the nature of the crime, the severity, and whether the individual has been rehabilitated.

It depends on the crime.there should be a full and transparent audit open for everyone to view and then there should be a vote open to everyone to decide if they may continue and this should happen not be a 1 time thing for each crime committed

As long as it isn't treason, a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime and the politician isn't currently under investigation.

It really depends on the crime, and the nature of it. Though in the case of violence only if it’s out of self defence, and aren’t getting away with things like racism, ableism, or sexism when being PM.

No and there should be a certain and strict guideline/check list for individuals to complete to be able to run

it depends on what crime. Anything like rape, kidnapping, murder or robbery should be where we draw the line.

yes as long as they do a certain amount of good deeds like community hours and are proven to turn their life around.

I believe that everyone deserves a second chance but putting someone in charge of many others that has commited a crime is just not ethical.

yes, as long as it was not committed while in the office or as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime

it depends on the crime that he has done a big crime then no if a smaller crime then they should consider voting for him

Yes, As long as the sentence is served and a psych evalutation is completed. And if the crime commited was not sexual or violent-extreme.

maybe. Yes, as long as the crime does not impact their ability lead in an ethical and unbiased way. If we exclude candidates based on convictions groups that are over-represented in our criminal system will be systematically under represented by our political system.

Yes, but it is entirely dependent on the severity of the crime. If the individual poses a threat to the people/government, they should not be allowed to run for office.

yes but the sentence must be done being served they must not be currently on parole and it cannot be commited while in office

Yes, however it is dependent on the severity of the crime and how long ago said politician committed the crime.

No, and temporarily remove politicians that are under investigation for a crime until that investigation has been complete

Yes as long as they are done serving there sentence and they have proven that they are fit for government work.

I would need proof that they are rehabilitated before they run for office. I do believe people can change for the better.

Difficult question. I belive all people can learn. Id say, if it was because of corruption and they just tried to hide it or deny despite overwhelming facts, then no.

Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence, and have been proven to be remorseful and reformed.

maybe, depends on what crime they commited or if they are still a bad person

Yes, as long as conviction is public knowledge.

Yes, but only once they are found unlikely to offend again.

it really depends on the crime, it doesnt matter if they have served their sentence. if its petty theift then yes but if its murder and/or rape,then definitely not.

Yes, provided the crime was non-violent

No, unless they were falsely accused

it dependos what the crime was and when and wear

depends on the crime and if sentence is finished

Yes, as long as the crime is publicly disclosed

Yes, depending on how many years it has been since the crime was committed.

All depends on the crime. I believe people can rehabilitate. But I also believe that by making bad decisions you should lose some privileges

Yes, so long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime, and there is evidence of change.

Depends on the crime and how bad it was

as long as said crime was committed and made-up for at minimum 10 years before they even ran for office

If it is something minor like shoplifting when they were thirteen that is fine. Anything else is not

If the crime isn’t severe and they have not been found guilty then they should be allowed to run for office

No, because they could cheat their way to a higher position in the government, and potentially affect rules and regulations.

Yes, as long as they have finished their sentence, and their surface could benefit our future society. Minor offences shouldn't be of much concern, especially if the candidate is the most qualified person for the job.

No they shouldn't, because they did a crime and they should go to jail instead of running for an office job.

it depends because if they committed a major crime they shouldn't be aloud but if it was something small that they did a long time ago it is fine.

depends on the severity of the crime if they were convicted of rape sex or embezzelement for example then no

Depends on the sevarity of the crime and their record. Also, it matters if the crime was committed in office.

yes, unless they have committed a first-class felony, are still serving time, or the crime happened withing the last 10 years and was a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime

Personally it depends on what crime was committed and how severe it was and what actions needed to be taken.

It depends on the crime. If it was theft then yeah they should be able to run for office but if it was murder or attempted murder then no they shouldn't be able to run for office

it depends how bad the crime was if it was little thing its not a big deal. But also people change

It truly does depend on the crime, such as if it was a money scandal, then I could see a problem with it.

Yes, I believe everyone has the right to run for office because people commit crimes regularly, whether they are minor or major. People should have the right to run for office because humans change, and we don’t stay criminals forever.

Yes unless the crime was within the profession or the crime which would be bad was something they want to defend

If it was not a serious crime, and they have served their time and if it was not committed while in office, then they could be allowed to run for office.

No, however in the case of President Donald Trump all of the charges were phony so that doesn't count.

I think it depends on the severity of the crime. For more serious indictable offences (assault with a weapon) I don't think they should be.

Dependent on the crime however even if they are able to run regardless, it can affect the way people vote so it may not be a smart move to allow

Yes, but only if they pass psychological safety, general knowledge, and competency testing to ensure that they are fit to represent the country

If they have served their sentence and if they have truly become a better person, and government should still keep an eye on them

Yes, as long as they have served their punishment and proven they are now changed and eligible to run for office.

Yes as long as it doesn’t define their character. Cases are complex and should be perceived based on the details and origin

The severity of the crime and when it was committed should come into play. If someone was a teenager and shoplifted something and then runs for office 30+ years later then I’m fine.

Yes, so long as he has paid his debt to society and his involvement in politics does not pose a conflict of interest of that his crimes were not related to his duties if elected.

Yes, but only so long as their criminal history does not pose a conflict of interest with their position.

Yes, as long as it was not committed while in office, was not an election-related crime, and they have finished their sentence.

This is a complicated one because this could be weaponized by opposition to prevent certain people from being in office

The trump administration has been placed under pressure after pointing out rigged elections, and left-wing ideology. Trump will likely win the 2024 elections, despite his criminal record.

depends on the crime and motives behind it and if they have served time as well as changed as a person

Depends on the severity of the crime. If they were caught speeding and got a speeding ticket at a young age, I would say "no". Some people learn as they grow.

It depends on what the crime was, and when they did it. For example, someone who shoplifted when they were a teenager once and that was it and now they are forty feels fine, but if they have murdered someone a few years prior feels a little different.

If they have nad a record of doing criminal behaviour no but they should still be able to run if they have 2 or less

I think that it should be allowed: 1) if it was a wrong conviction 2) they should not be held with that one image in their life 3) if it has been atleast 5 years after the conviction

Yes, because there are different situations in life, and a person could be framed, or he could understand his mistakes and change, but if he repeated it twice, then no

no. Because we can't gaurantee that they won't do the crime again. Why should we have a politition that we can't be comfortable with because of their deeds?