• 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
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.



What are negative rights?


It says you have the right to counsel, not the right to force someone to be your counsel.Two different things.

Congress shall make no law ...

... Shall not be infringed

These are all negative rights. They restrict someone (the government) from doing something.

... Shall enjoy the right ... By an impartial jury ... And to have the assistance of counsel....

These are positive rights. That's why we have compulsory jury service and court-appointed attorneys for indigents.
 
I believe the accused has a right to defense.But at the same time a lawyer should never defend someone they believe is guilty.It takes a subhuman piece of **** to knowingly defend violent criminal or to try to scam the system.

It's hard for lawyers to say no to their customers. Money makes many things work. Think about the Dream Team of Simpsons.
 
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.

If a lawyer has no evidence that a client is guilty, and no confession from the client, there is no ethical dilemma in defending that client. Nor should there be, because everyone is entitled to counsel.
 
Congress shall make no law ...

... Shall not be infringed

These are all negative rights. They restrict someone (the government) from doing something.

I wouldn't call those negative rights. One could argue that the whole bill of rights is a restriction on government in order to protect people from the government.

... Shall enjoy the right ... By an impartial jury ... And to have the assistance of counsel....

These are positive rights. That's why we have compulsory jury service and court-appointed attorneys for indigents.

Again the 6th amendment grants you the right to counsel in a criminal trial it does not force someone to act as your cousel in criminal trial.Just like the 2nd amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms it does not force private individuals to sell or give you a weapon.The 1st grants you the right to a peaceful assembly of people,the right to free speech, the right to freedom religious, freedom of the press,and petition grievances. The first does not force people to assemble with you and to force someone to provide you with the means to speech.The first does not force someone to provide a church,religious book,religious clothing, religious diet or anything else needed for exercising one's religion.It does not force others to provide you with a way to petition grievances the government or to force people to be members of the press.
 
I wouldn't call those negative rights. One could argue that the whole bill of rights is a restriction on government in order to protect people from the government.



Again the 6th amendment grants you the right to counsel in a criminal trial it does not force someone to act as your cousel in criminal trial.Just like the 2nd amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms it does not force private individuals to sell or give you a weapon.The 1st grants you the right to a peaceful assembly of people,the right to free speech, the right to freedom religious, freedom of the press,and petition grievances. The first does not force people to assemble with you and to force someone to provide you with the means to speech.The first does not force someone to provide a church,religious book,religious clothing, religious diet or anything else needed for exercising one's religion.It does not force others to provide you with a way to petition grievances the government or to force people to be members of the press.

So what happens if no lawyer will defend a client?
 
So what happens if no lawyer will defend a client?

Then the client gets no lawyer.Its the same if no store sell me a gun, bible or anything else to enable me to exercise my constitutional rights or if no one will peacefully assemble with me.
 
Last edited:
Then the client gets no lawyer.Its the same if no store sell me a gun, bible or anything else to enable me to exercise my constitutional rights or if no one will peacefully assemble with me.

So as I stated earlier, you oppose the right to counsel. You could have just admitted that in the first place.
 
So as I stated earlier, you oppose the right to counsel. You could have just admitted that in the first place.

Again the 6th amendment grants you the right to counsel in a criminal trial it does not force someone to act as your counsel in criminal trial.I am a adamant 2nd amendment supporter, but I do not support forcing gun shops selling to people they do not feel comfortable selling to.
 
Again the 6th amendment grants you the right to counsel in a criminal trial it does not force someone to act as your counsel in criminal trial.I am a adamant 2nd amendment supporter, but I do not support forcing gun shops selling to people they do not feel comfortable selling to.

Thankfully no judge agrees with your interpretation of the sixth Amendment.
 
Yes. Most of the Civil Rights movement would have been ineligible to vote if those convicted of crimes were banned from voting.

I also am beginning to ponder whether or not voting from behind bars should be allowed. People in prison are still US citizens. Maybe allowing them to vote would create more of a sense of civic responsibility and is a currently missed ingredient in their rehabilitation. Maybe they are wrongfully convicted. Maybe they are convicted on an unjust law.

There a few reasons I'm starting to think this way, not the least of which being I think way too many people are in prison in the country when they could be out working for a living, supporting their families and still paying their debts to society under house arrest with allowances to do to work every day using tracking technology. I think it also might be a good idea to seal the arrest and conviction records of everybody except violent offenders and those with a "need to know."
 
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.

Not all, I dont want violent criminals free to own guns.
 
Thankfully no judge agrees with your interpretation of the sixth Amendment.

1.The supreme court is ran by partisan judges.They make rulings based on ideology, not what the Constitution actually says.Which is why their rulings are usually split republican democrat.

2.The 6th amendment does not say people can be forced to provide counsel.
 
1.The supreme court is ran by partisan judges.They make rulings based on ideology, not what the Constitution actually says.Which is why their rulings are usually split republican democrat.

2.The 6th amendment does not say people can be forced to provide counsel.

You're right. Two hundred years ago two political parties that didn't exist yet made a conspiracy to misinterpret the provision, and every judge or other legal analyst ever since has been in on it. Thanks for cracking that wide open.
 
You're right. Two hundred years ago two political parties that didn't exist yet made a conspiracy to misinterpret the provision, and every judge or other legal analyst ever since has been in on it. Thanks for cracking that wide open.


So you are saying that when democrat judges make rulings against the 2nd amendment in second amendment cases they actually going by what the Constitution says and not personal ideology?
 
So you are saying that when democrat judges make rulings against the 2nd amendment in second amendment cases they actually going by what the Constitution says and not personal ideology?

When they are upholding legal principles disputed by no professionals, yes.
 
Never.

There's enough clean slate people in the world that we don't need 'Reformed Scumbags' running things.



Society must be maintained and all society really is at the end of the day is a system to keep the scum (who indeed might be popular with the masses) from running the high sanctum. Once this basic system fails you have open mafia. Just because the masses want something does not make it good for them. The founders didn't even believe all men should vote for this very reason. They knew the masses would promptly elect criminal elements who appeased their primal sentiments.
 
Last edited:
Should convicted criminals be allowed to hold office?

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

I don't see any real reason why they shouldn't be. They might be hard pressed to convince voters to vote for them if they've committed a serious enough crime but that's up to voters.
 
Just because you got caught should not make a difference, however it might speak to your qualifications when you do run. One who has been savvy enough to have not been caught might be arguably more capable. :2razz:
 
It depends on the crime and the office. I wouldn't want a convicted sex offender to be in charge of children's services, for instance, whether they've been through the system or not. I don't care if someone has been convicted of a misdemeanor for any office. Murder, probably not. Financial crimes working in a financially sensitive office, probably not. It depends.
 
Just because you got caught should not make a difference, however it might speak to your qualifications when you do run. One who has been savvy enough to have not been caught might be arguably more capable. :2razz:

... at ripping off the people. ;)
 
We have one holding our highest office right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom