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

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.

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

Yes, (depends on sentence) as long as they have finished their sentence, gone through physical and mental therapy regarding their sentence…

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

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

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

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

Depends on what it was and when

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

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.

Depends what they did but normally no

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 wasn’t a violent 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 as long as it was not a sexual crime

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

Yes if they have received a pardon

yes, as long as it was not a felony or crime such as fraud or money laundering

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.

Depends on the crime, the context of the crime, if they got around punishment for the crime etc.

Yes, if the crime is minim.

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

We’re all human we all make mistakes and if you can’t agree with that then I don’t know what to tell you

Yes, as long as the crime they committed was not related to what they need to be trusted for while in office. They also have to have finished serving their sentence.

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.

As long as they change for the better of themselves and the world.