• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should convicted criminals be allowed to hold office?

Should convicted criminals be allowed to hold office?

  • Total voters
    55
jamesrage said:
I do not have issue with a lawyer trying to prove the innocence of their client. What I have issue is if that lawyer believes their client is guilty before the trial is even started and still proceeds to try to get that client off the hook even after believing that client is guilty.Its no different than a gun store who knowingly sells a gun to criminal or a car dealership who knowingly sells the car to someone who has no license and is uninsured or a pharmacist who knowingly fills out a bogus prescription.
Click to expand...

What you are describing may be unethical and/or immoral, but it's not illegal... and the subject of the thread notwithstanding, a person should never be barred from holding office for engaging in legal activity. Office-holding based on ethical/immoral activity should be solely based on the voter's judgment.
 
radcen said:
What you are describing may be unethical and/or immoral, but it's not illegal... and the subject of the thread notwithstanding, a person should never be barred from holding office for engaging in legal activity. Office-holding based on ethical/immoral activity should be solely based on the voter's judgment.
Click to expand...

Defending a client is actually ethically obligatory.
 
It'd be a nice change to know they're criminals before they get elected.
 
Paleocon said:
Defending a client is actually ethically obligatory.
Click to expand...
Legally obligatory. Ethically is a matter of personal ethics/morality. Many defense attorneys prefer to not know, for this reason.

Then you get into the whole "are they then providing an adequate and rigorous defense?" if they don't know, but that's getting way off topic for this particular thread.
 
radcen said:
Legally obligatory. Ethically is a matter of personal ethics/morality. Many defense attorneys prefer to not know, for this reason.

Then you get into the whole "are they then providing an adequate and rigorous defense?" if they don't know, but that's getting way off topic for this particular thread.
Click to expand...

No, they have ethical codes for a reason.
 
I do not see why not after all they are all eventually criminals once in office anyway.
 
jamesrage said:
I think that once someone is finished serving their prison sentence they should have all their rights restored to them.

If I was to ban anyone from holding office it would be criminal defense lawyers who knowingly defend someone who is guilty and trial lawyers who file idiotic lawsuits.Those people are the lowest of the low.
Click to expand...

People who committed crimes not only have a right to a defense but their lawyers are legally obligated to give them the best defense. If the state can't prove their case within the rules of law they shouldn't have the ability to take away freedom or in some cases the life of someone. So blaming defense attorneys because they did their legally obligated job is silly.
 
Paleocon said:
So which of the two rights do you wish to abolish? The right to counsel or the right to remain silent?
Click to expand...
So if a guns shop owner refuses to sell a gun to someone he believes is a criminal then that gun shop owner is for abolishing the 2nd amendment? Your logic is flawed.
 
jamesrage said:
So if a guns shop owner refuses to sell a gun to someone he believes is a criminal then that gun shop owner is for abolishing the 2nd amendment? Your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...

Let me put this simply:

The Constitution requires that a defendant have access to a defense attorney to defend him.

The Constitution does not require a person to have access to a gun store willing to sell him guns.

So again, which right do you support abolishing?
 
radcen said:
Should convicted criminals be allowed to hold office?

Any office. Misdemeanor and/or felony. The question presumes said convicted criminals have completed their sentence.
Click to expand...

If they can get elected, let them serve. Plenty of politicians are "unconvicted felons." Why not get a jump on it?
 
Paleocon said:
Let me put this simply:

The Constitution requires that a defendant have access to a defense attorney to defend him.
Click to expand...
Requiring access is not the same thing as forcing another person to act as counsel. So a lawyer who believes someone is guilty can say no and refuse to defend that person.The 6th amendment does not say they accused shall force someone to act as counsel for him or her, nor does not say the accused gets counsel of his or her choosing.
 
jamesrage said:
Requiring access is not the same thing as forcing another person to act as counsel. So a lawyer who believes someone is guilty can say no and refuse to defend that person.
Click to expand...

If the lawyer is court appointed they will lose their license if not be considered in contempt.
 
Paleocon said:
If the lawyer is court appointed they will lose their license if not be considered in contempt.
Click to expand...

Then the law should be changed.No lawyer should be forced to defend someone whom he or she believes is guilty.
 
jamesrage said:
Then the law should be changed.No lawyer should be forced to defend someone whom he or she believes is guilty.
Click to expand...

So you want to abolish the right to counsel, got it.
 
jamesrage said:
Where did I say such a thing?
Click to expand...

Post #39 (amongst others) where you stated that a court should not be able to order an attorney to represent an indigent client, thus removing the right to an attorney.
 
Paleocon said:
Post #39 (amongst others) where you stated that a court should not be able to order an attorney to represent an indigent client, thus removing the right to an attorney.
Click to expand...

That post was not in response the 6th amendment.It was in response to post #38. "If the lawyer is court appointed they will lose their license if not be considered in contempt." The 6th amendment does not say the accused shall force someone to act as counsel for him or her, nor does not say the accused gets counsel of his or her choosing.
 
Only difference between a convicted criminal politician and a regular politician is on has been convicted of a crime the other hasn't been caught yet.
 
jamesrage said:
That post was not in response the 6th amendment.It was in response to post #38. "If the lawyer is court appointed they will lose their license if not be considered in contempt." The 6th amendment does not say the accused shall force someone to act as counsel for him or her, nor does not say the accused gets counsel of his or her choosing.
Click to expand...

Actually the only way indigent defendants get lawyers is by court order.

So yes someone has to be forced.
 
Paleocon said:
Actually the only way indigent defendants get lawyers is by court order.

So yes someone has to be forced.
Click to expand...

Where in the 6th amendment does it say you can force someone to be someone else's Counsel?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]
 
jamesrage said:
Where in the 6th amendment does it say you can force someone to be someone else's Counsel?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]
Click to expand...

The last part of it.
 
Paleocon said:
The last part of it.
Click to expand...

I do not think you read that part right because its says you can have Counsel.It doesn't say you can force someone to be yours or someone else' Counsel.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not think you read that part right because its says you can have Counsel.It doesn't say you can force someone to be yours or someone else' Counsel.
Click to expand...

It ensures a right to counsel. Positive rights entail positive obligations, as is evident to anyone who understands what they are talking about.
 
Paleocon said:
It ensures a right to counsel.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment ensures me the right to gun.It does not force anyone to sell me a gun.The first amendment ensures me the right to peaceful assemble, not the right to force others to assemble with me.

Positive rights entail positive obligations,
Click to expand...

What are negative rights?

as is evident to anyone who understands what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
It says you have the right to counsel, not the right to force someone to be your counsel.Two different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom