Why should or shouldn't we allow convicted or accused people to run for public office?

Question

Can you please state your reason on why they should or shouldn't be allowed to run for public office besides that it's not against the law or something like that =) because I'm going to use this opinion of yours for my paper ^^

Answer 1

Someone who has been accused of a crime but never convicted has not (legally) committed any crime. So, there is no reason they should be banned from running for office. If people choose not to vote for them, that's up to the voters.

As far as convicted -- it depends. Someone convicted of getting into a barroom brawl when they are 21 (and running for office at 45) is different than someone convicted of perjury or mass murder. So, it all depends.

But constitutionally (in the US) it's a very tricky thing to try and remove the right of someone to be chosen by the population, unless they are currently incarcerated for a crime.

Whatever we might think of that person, it is possible that the majority of other people might think differently. And there is nothing in the text of the constitution (unless I'm forgetting something) which prohibits a ex-convict from being eligible to become elected to public office.

Answer 2

Accused can run for office...they havent been found guilty...
Convicted can hold office...just look at San Francisco's mayor
with his little subsatnce abuse problem.

Answer 3

We do, depending on what they were convicted of.

Answer 4

Might as well....most politicians are crooked any way