• 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

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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 would go with felons. Dime bag or bad driving record should not be a disqualifier.
 
Once your time is served all your rights should be restored to you and you should be allowed to run for office.
 
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 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.
 
Depends on the crime.
 
Depends, on how bad the offense was and how long he/she served and for what office.

For example a sheriff should never been convicted of a crime if he/she wants to be elected to that function.

And I think that all offices should be closed off to people who have committed crimes against life, sexual crimes warranting serious prison time (rape, incest) and stuff like that.
 
Depends on both the crime and the office. As was mentioned earlier, crimes on the level of dime bag possession should not disqualify someone. Violent crimes should disqualify everyone.

There should be some specialized crime/office restrictions, such as no fraud/embezzlement convictions for a finance-related position.
 
Depends, on how bad the offense was and how long he/she served and for what office.

For example a sheriff should never been convicted of a crime if he/she wants to be elected to that function.

And I think that all offices should be closed off to people who have committed crimes against life, sexual crimes warranting serious prison time (rape, incest) and stuff like that.

once your time is served, your punishment is over. Why should we keep punishing them after their time is done. They should be allowed to run, whether they get elected is up to the people.
 
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.

So do you support repealing the right against self-incrimination, the right to counsel, or both?
 
We already have unconvicted criminals in office, why not have convicted ones? At least THEY served their time.
 
Yes, but not until they are out of prison, as it wouldn't be feasible to expect them to show up for their office. One of the key principles of a democratic republic is that everyone has the right to run for office. On a similar topic, felons should be allowed to maintain their right to vote whether or not they're in prison. The right to vote cannot be violated by the government at will.
 
Should convicted criminals be allowed to hold office?

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

You mean as opposed to the unconvicted criminals we have holding office now?
 
once your time is served, your punishment is over. Why should we keep punishing them after their time is done. They should be allowed to run, whether they get elected is up to the people.

I disagree, some crimes are incompatible with representing your country IMHO.

I might be a social democrat and a progressive but that does not mean I am progressive/liberal on all issues. I like my representatives and my leaders/high government officials to be non-serious criminals.
 
Considering the people as a whole (or at least the ones that vote) vote in who they want why not? Do you really think that the people as a whole would vote in a child rapist/killer?
 
Considering the people as a whole (or at least the ones that vote) vote in who they want why not? Do you really think that the people as a whole would vote in a child rapist/killer?
I seriously doubt it, but I see it as kind of a principle thing. Do we believe in the freedom thing, or do we just give it lip service? Do we believe in "paying your debt to society", or are we just jaw-jackin'?
 
Considering the people as a whole (or at least the ones that vote) vote in who they want why not? Do you really think that the people as a whole would vote in a child rapist/killer?

Most likely not, but legally they should be allowed to run.
 
So do you support repealing the right against self-incrimination, the right to counsel, or both?

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.
 
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.

You didn't answer the question, those two rights cannot exist together in a system where lawyers will quit based on being told their client is guilty.

If you don't like our system, you're free to move to a country which lacks these rights.
 
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 not up to a defense lawyer to decide whether someone is guilty or not though. Defence lawyers are there to uphold the defendant's rights, not to judge them.

Everyone on trial is innocent (and should be treated as such) until judged guilty by their peers.
 
Last edited:
You didn't answer the question, those two rights cannot exist together in a system where lawyers will quit based on being told their client is guilty.

If you don't like our system, you're free to move to a country which lacks these rights.
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.
 
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.

So which of the two rights do you wish to abolish? The right to counsel or the right to remain silent?
 
They couldn't possibly do worse than the senators we have now so....

I propose that *only* ex-cons can hold senate seats. Would be a nice experiment
 
Nobody who has broken the law while in office, if the crime is related to the office itself, should be allowed to run for office again. For example, I don't care if a politician buys hookers while in office. However, if said politician diverted taxpayer money outside of his/her yearly salary to pay for those hookers, they should never be allowed to run for office again. Anything related to taking bribes or other forms of government corruption should be similarly punished. Also, no rapists or pedophiles.
 
Back
Top Bottom