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

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

Depends on the crime ect

Seems like a case by case basis here, if someone stole something then fine but if they were violent then no

That completely depends on the crime.

Yes, as long as they can prove they've changed and the crime is not violence, financial, or sexual.

It depends, probably, if the first three criteria are met

Yes, as long as the crime was not violent, sexual, or involved the physical or emotional harm to a child

Yes, as long as it is agreed upon by the public and that the crime is not one that would affect the public (e.x: rape, murder, embezzlement..)

It is dependent on the scenario and should be evaluated on a case by case basis

it all depends on what crime was committed.

Yes, as long as Canada also does not deport someone who committed a crime and has finished serving their sentence.

It depends on the severity of the crime, and whether they have finished serving their sentence.

Yes, as long as it wasn’t a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime and as long as they have finished serving their sentence.

Yes as long as they have under gone psychological evaluation and are not a threat to society.

Yes, if the crime was not committed while in office and have finished serving their sentence

Any allegations of sexual assault should immediately have their authority taken away.

Yes but only if they changed.

It depends how bad the crime was

Yes, depending on the intentionality and context of the crime

Depends on what it was and when

Yes, as long as they've undergone therapeutic treatment which has given written approval of their progress.

is this actually a joke

Yes as long as they have finished their sentence, finished parole successfully without any issues, as long as the crime was not committed while in office, and as long as it wasn’t a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime.

That depends on what the crime was. Sexual assault? No. Drug possession during an addiction that they’ve since recovered from? No, and that could place an interesting perspective of lived experience when it comes to social policies.

Depends the crime and severity

Yes, as long as it was not corporate crime or crime which would indicate corruption

Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, sexual, or politically motivated

Depends on the crime, the time served AND if they were currently in office.

Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence and it was not a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime. As well as it was not commîtes while in office.

If they have learned from their mistakes and can prove so.

If the crime was committed before the age of 18 and was not violent, or sexual they should be allowed to run.

Depends what they did but normally no

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

Depends on the severity of the crime, I agree with the point that says as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime. I do think that the crime would need to be heavily looked into.

It depends on the severity of the crime and if it was committed while running for or in office.

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

Yes, as long as they've finished their sentence and has shown positive change within themselves and the community

yes, as long as the crime doesn't discredit anything that they might do in office.

It depends upon the severity of the crime committed.

Depends on the crime and why it happened

Yes, as long as it is not a violent/sexual crime.

Yes, so long as they have both served their time, and that the crime was not committed in office.

Yes but make their criminal history public record and make them acknowledge what happened.

yes as long as they are a better person and will not repeat it again

I feel like as long as they served their sentence and it wasn’t a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime.

As long as the nation who is voting is aware of the crime.

Yes, as long as it was pardoned or as long as it wasn’t a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime

depends on what crime was committed, how long ago it was, and if they served their full sentence

I think it depnds on what the situation is.

As long as it was served, it was not a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime and was not commited while in office.

As long as said politician has not done anything life threatening toward a person.

If they have seen a professional and they are good to run

Yes, as long as it wasn’t a felony, sexual, financial or violent crime and 10 years has passed since time served.

Yes as long as it’s not a sexual or violent crime

Yes, so long as the time has been served and the crime was committed far enough in the past that they would have grown as a person.

yes, as long as the crime doesn't indicate that this person would abuse this position of power

I believe that if they used their political/social power to commit the crime, then no. If they use their privilege and influence to take advantage of people, they shouldn't be in government. But, if the crime was committed before running, then it is important to think critically about it. If we completely disallow it, then it would lessen the chance that an at-risk youth has of seeing themself represented in government. People of color are often convicted of crimes, and get longer sentences than white people.

Yes, if the crime is minim.

It depends on the crime and what was done about it. All politicians have committed crimes.

Depends what the crime was and what time they served

depends on the crime and how they have learned from their choices and grown as a person

Yes as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime while in office or not.

Yes, as long as they are rehabilitated from their crime and understand the actions they committed

depending on what crime

As long as they haven't committed financial fraud

Yes, I think people change so they could run for biased and give them a chance but if it is t a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime then no

Yes. They have a perspective of what is right and wrong, that there is a gray area that should be acknowledged. No one is perfect.

yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence, did not commit the crime while in office, was not a felony, violent, financial or sexual crime and have been pardoned

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

Depends on the crime & the severity and if the person is trying to reform for numbers of years

Maybe, it depends on the crime.

It depends on what the crime is if they commit something such as rape or murder then they should never be allowed to run for office again.

As long as it wasn't murder that was not in self defense or other violent crimes