Should a conviction affect your ability to vote or run?

dulpit

With the whole Donald Trump stuff in the news, it got me thinking about the rights to run or to vote if you have a criminal conviction or are serving a sentence.

I was surprised (and happy) to see that if you are serving a custodial sentence then you are entitled to a postal vote.

I believe that you can't be elected to dail if you are bankrupt or are serving a sentence of more than 6 months, but there's no restrictions if you have previously served a sentence.

My personal view is that if you are an incarcerated individual you should still get to vote, and I am glad that this is possible.

I also strongly believe that, even if you have committed serious offences, you should be entitled to run for election on the basis that you have served your sentence. Leave it up to the electorate then to ultimately decide.

I've seen a few people suggest that they would believe the opposite of this, and I'm curious if I'm an outlier on my views or not. I'm aware that boards tends to lean more right than the general public but I'm still eager to see what people think

Brussels Sprout

I think people who have served their sentence should be able to vote and run for elected office.

I do not think that people who are currently serving custodial sentences should be able to vote or run for office.

The hypocrisy with the Republican party on this matter is nauseating. They have actively blocked the wish of the voters in states like Florida, where voters overwhelmingly passed an amendment to restore the voting rights of felons. They fear that ex-felons, who are disproportionately African American, would be natural Democrat voters and they therefore use everything in their power to deny them the vote where they can - even subverting the will of the people.

Sam Russell

In Ireland, many of the early TDs and Ministers were jailed at some point. Even our beloved (!) Dev was sentenced to death in 1916, and he became President.

Any country that was founded on revolution had leaders imprisoned at some point. Look at SA and Mandela.

Imprisonment is a badge of honor to a revolutionary. So a conviction should not matter, but of course it depends on the particular offence - but let the voters decide.

magicbastarder

One of my local TDs was convicted of terrorism offences - dessie Ellis. He got 10 years in Ireland for possession of bomb making equipment.

moon2

If someone were to commit a crime while holding office, and the crime were an abuse of the powers of that office, then they should be barred for a reasonable period of time or permanently.

It'd be ideal if the list of crimes were reasonably tightly defined, but not an explicit list. There should be wiggle room to prevent people from trying to skirt the intention of the law.

Being barred from office forever for being in possession of drugs 20 years prior is unlikely to be widely supported, and I wouldn't support it either

breezy1985

You should be allowed run if you have done your time but with some exceptions.

If you are guilty of corruption or crimes relating to politics be that abuse of power or attempts at vote rigging, spying or something mad like that then no.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220192#Comment_122220192

I'd add Murder and Serious sexual crimes to that list of "permanent exclusion" offences

But otherwise , if you have served your time you should be allowed to both vote and run for office.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122212307#Comment_122212307

Some current TDs and MEPs have been in prison:

Bernard Durkan, Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, Ming Flanagan, Dessie Ellis

AMKC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222093#Comment_122222093

They could have left most of them in Prison and them would not be missed.

Me I think once you have served you sentence you should be allowed vote and run for office and as long as what a prisioner has done is not something like kill a person or commit a crime against the state then they should be allowed to vote.

Loafing Oaf

Definitely to run. The fewer beliefs, convictions or principles you have the further you are likely to go in Irish politics…

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222093#Comment_122222093

And a good few more should have been sent to prison.

magicbastarder

yeah, gas that clare daly went to prison but P flynn did not.

Podge_irl

I generally think the decision should be left to the electorate, as distasteful as their choices sometimes are to me personally. Having permanent exclusion offences sits a bit uneasily with me.

StoutPost

I have no problem with people being allowed to vote.

But I don't think people convicted of serious offences should be allowed run for office.

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222219#Comment_122222219

This is devils advocate but what you're saying is you'd be ok with a paedophile voting again but the father who killed the paedophile who's been abusing his child for a decade should not be allowed to vote? Or a guy who got convicted for not paying their taxes (crime against the state) should not be allowed to vote but the guy who smuggled in 100kg of heroin and sold it on the streets is ok?

I think that ultimately there should be no limitations on voting simply because it can, and will, be abused in some form down the line. In addition if someone has committed "insert heinous crime" but can still get enough people to vote them in why should they not be allowed? The punishment is decided by the court; once they are released they should regain all rights as a citizen again.

blackwhite

Don't think there should be limitations on either voting or running.

However, I do think there should be something like the Garda vetting system required for all candidates with any convictions, together with date of conviction and sentence imposed, included on the notice of poll as part of the candidates' details.

Effectively a column added to the below statutory notice.

https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/2024-05/notice-of-poll-update-30-05-2024.pdf

Murt2024

Politics be a good place if your good at money laundering.

witchgirl26

I've no issue with anyone voting, convictions or no, as they still have a say in how the country is run. However I think more serious convictions should have a penalty of not being allowed to run or hold public office. Things like SA, murder, manslaughter etc. I know that people may get out after serving their time for this & I've no issue with them rejoining society if they've been deemed no longer a threat but I don't think they should hold positions of power in society.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122227326#Comment_122227326

But shouldn't that be for the wider public/electorate to decide?

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122227838#Comment_122227838

I don't think so. I would only limit it to the really higher level convictions & maybe those convicted by the special criminal court but I think if you do commit one of those acts, you do need to face some long term consequences & 1 of those should be not being able to hold public office.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122229680#Comment_122229680

But surely the sentence itself should be the consequence for the convicted person? Why should they have additional issues/restrictions beyond their sentence?

matrim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122230156#Comment_122230156

The lack of ability to hold office would become part of the sentence.

Similar to how you could get something like 6 months in prison for certain driving offenses but also have your license suspended for 5 years.

gym_imposter

Absolutely not

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122230156#Comment_122230156

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122230207#Comment_122230207

I think matrim answered for me there & I agree. Same way that a convicted sex offender has to be on a register etc. It's a consequence to your actions for the most serious of crimes. I'm not saying someone who's gotten a few months for doing something stupid should not be allowed to run for local elections. But say for example, someone who waterboarded someone in their garage & was convicted of that should not be allowed to hold public office.

Red Silurian

If you are in prison then you can't carry out the functions of the position you were elected to, unless you were elected as an MEP it seems

Any other conviction let the people decide. Especially in an Irish context we wouldn't have had Eamon DeValera or Gerry Adams able to run for election if we had such a rule

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122236023#Comment_122236023

Massive difference between Eamon DeValera & Gerry Adams. Eamon DeValera was never convicted by an Irish court system but rather by a colonial one & held office after the establishment of a whole new state. It's very different to someone convicted in our courts today. And Gerry Adams he was interned & then convicted of trying to organise an escape. Now I wouldn't be a fan of the man, but neither of them are the type of convictions for murder, manslaughter etc that have been mentioned as barriers to holding office.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122226248#Comment_122226248

That would annoy both SF and the far-right so it's a thumbs up from me 👍️

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122236023#Comment_122236023

and we'd have been far better off without either.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122240543#Comment_122240543

Was Gerry convicted by an Irish court or a colonial one? N

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122320454#Comment_122320454

Well he was convicted by a UK court which has power in Northern Ireland and there hasn't been an establishment of a new state since, so does still stand as a difference. Now if Northern Ireland became it's own state & decided he could run, that's different. He also wasn't convicted of one of the offences that anyone has noted should preclude someone holding office. All he was ever convicted of was attempting to escape/organise an escape. And those convictions were quashed by the UK supreme court in 2020.

HalloweenJack

A paedophile-killing father is still a murderer, however righteous people might think that is, and voting for someone of their ilk is a vote for vigilantism and someone who is happy to take the law into their own hands.

I know it'd be popular on an emotional level but logically its a dangerous precedent.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122324832#Comment_122324832

You have to look at it closer than that. Did the paedo-killer act because the courts let him walk free or did he wait until he was out of prison after serving a justifiable sentence?

To the vast majority of people one is more acceptable than the other but to deny that person the right to run would be akin to denying people the right to vote for who they want to run their country.

It would be very easy for democratic backsliding to happen if a law banning anybody from voting or running due to a conviction ever came into effect. Simon Harris could decide in the morning to pass a law banning FF membership, every FF member gets a conviction and therefore can't run against him.

Obviously there should be a requirement for them to be out of prison at the time because otherwise how would they do their job

HalloweenJack

They'd still be a murderer. Either they are taking the law into their own hands or they are acting on revenge. Neither are good characteristics to have in an elected official. In both cases, they are displaying contempt for the law, something which they would be expected to uphold if elected.

I don't believe all convictions should ban people from being elected but murder, sexual assault, robbery, any kind of violence, etc. would be ones for me.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325384#Comment_122325384

All heinous crimes no doubt… I do think that on the condition that they have served their time in prison and have been rehabilitated they should then be afforded the same rights as every other free person

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325830#Comment_122325830

That article is 12 years old, if true he would surely have been arrested by now and be in prison rather than the Dáil

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326025#Comment_122326025

He's already served time, wouldn't be a basis to go after him again with the GFA.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326482#Comment_122326482

If he's served his time what's the issue then?

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325830#Comment_122325830

He is not a serial killer and men have sat in Dáil Éireann who were responsible for the deaths of far more than 50! You could argue that those who took part in the War of Independence where the legitimate army of the state, but those who took up arms against the state during the civil war most certainly were not and we did not have any qualms about them serving in the Dáil. Now I have no time for him or his type and back in the 80s I'd have been happy to see him shot, but those days are gone TG.

The other side of the coin is should the people be free to choose who they want to represent them or should that right be limited by the state?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326487#Comment_122326487

He has not served time for that (because he hasn't been convicted of it, for starters); but as a released prisoner there wouldn't be any realistic chance of prosecution.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326956#Comment_122326956

But if there is no realistic chance of prosecution, no charges and no arrest, what makes you think he's guilty?