Should a politician who has been formerly convicted of a crime be allowed to run for office?

Yes, as long as they have served their sentence *and* the sentence is publicly disclosed.

Yes, voters can decide for themselves if it's a dealbreaker

yes if this happens along time ago and have changed

I am a seafarer, and to hold a seagoing certificate, I have to prove that I am a Fit and Proper person. This should apply to politicians too.

Yes, as long as it's not a fraudulent crime

Only if the crime was something small like petty theft, anything serious like rape or murder is a hard NO

Yes, as long as it is not a financial, sexual or racially motivated crime, or a crime of abuse against children, animals or vulnerable communities

Speeding tickets are a crime, so the question needs a better structure

Yes, as if they have changed and are truely willing to make our country a better palce I think they should get the right to vote even if they have formely been convicted of a crime.

I think yes because they might be trying to chane there ways and trying to be better so I think everyone get a right

if they can prove that the crime will never be committed again then they should get a chance, but if the crime was not a small one they shouldn't be allowed back.

politicians should not be allowed in office that have been convicted of a crime excluding lesser crimes done as a youth like petty theft

Depends on the crime of course, but a crime that could result in a punishment of greater than or equal to 1 week in prison should prevent running for office.

Yes, as long as their the person's policies are good for the country and aren't corrupt, and that there's evidence that they won't commit heinous crimes ever again (like an oath or something).

I think that they should have someone make sure that they have had a change of heart from their previous crime and would not do it again.

if they are not under investigation, have served sentence and can be deemed as "trustworthy" again then it may be considered

I want to say yes but that would mean there are chances of a convicted rapist running our country, but there's also a chance with that law in place that people who have committed a petty crime like vandalism at a younger age wouldn't be allowed to run for office, which I find unfair, so I'm just going to say no.

depends on how bad the crime was. say it was a sexual crime or a shooting or something violent, and murder. they should NOT be allowed in office.

Ireland flags up sexual and violence therapy by French Maoris Russian kiwis Auckland and Hamilton higher rated fights across all countries Christchurch and weapon by the homeless and homicides and emergency founds with Whangarei changes with Council

More criminal and actions by the fruad independent by police checked camera by legend former US president Donald Trump and former UK Prime minister's office dramatic for legs wings

It depends on the crime as well as how they are now and the justification, intentions and reason of that criminal act.

Depends what it was for and how long ago same as going for a job but if its theft or certain things it should be automatically no

Yes as long as it wasn’t committed in office, they have finished their sentence and it wasn’t a dishonesty or moral standing offence and sufficient time has passed

Yes as long as it was not serious (felony, violent, financial, sexual, drug trafficing etc) and enough time has passed that it can be clean slated

Yes, as long as it was more than 10 years ago AND it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime

Yes as long as the crime was not committed while being a member of Parliament or isn't a crime which involved a power imbalance between victim and perpetrator

Depends on the crime. Violent crimes, fraud, black mail etc, they need to be banned from office for life.

depends on how big the crime is

I think if they have changed the way they act then they should have the right to run for prime minister

No because they could shoot everyone or even kill the important people there.

Historic offenses shouldn't be a hindrance.

No, until prison effectively functions as rehabilitation

Yes, depending on the crime and how long ago

It all depends on the crime for which they’ve been convicted.

Yes, as long as it was a petty crime and they are not a reoffender.

Yes, in limited circumstances

Not if it’s a white collar crime

As long as it’s not for a violent or financial crime and two years have passed since sentence ended to show good character

Yes, because forgiveness is necessary

Yes, but it should be required to be disclosed to the public.

Yes, as long as it is not a financial crime.

yes, but only for minor offences like speeding.

Must be publically disclosed

Yes as long as it is disclosed to the public before an office election. Public votes the people in so it should be transparent.

If there is full transparency and has not breached laws of office

If not violent, term has been served and this is all public knowledge so people can make an informed choice

Yes, but only if they are covered by the clean slate act - 7 years ago and the crime was not a violent, financial, sexual, or committed in office.

Crimes committed within a certain time bracket of the politician running shall deem them ineligible. But, crimes in youth and past inappropriate rehabilitation timing should not interfere.

Yes, as long it was not a violent crime, but the politician in question should be psychologically assessed and if they are under investigation they should not be allowed.

Yes, as long as the crime was not severe and they have passed types of psychological examinations to prove they are fit for office careers

It depends on the crime, whether they did it in office, and whether they have finished serving their sentence.

Yes, as long as it was before they were a legal adult and it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime.

Depends on the situation. Yes or no depending on the severity of the crime and how it may impact their job.

Depends. If they learn from their mistakes and want to change themselves then yes. They should be given a chance. But if they end up becoming power hungry and corrupt then they should be banned to run for office and immediately fired.

Only as long as they will not commit to any other illegal activities. It also depends on how serious the crime was.

Yes, as long as there are strict stipulations around what types/ level of crime are exempt, they’re currently not under investigation, have had 2 years after they’ve completed their sentence and shown steady societal integration without any re-occurring offences AND they should have specific contacts that are relevant to their individual circumstance within the political work place.

Yes Provided the sentence has been completed and the voters are made aware of the crime. The voters can then make the decision

It depends on the crime. Unpaid traffic fines say something bout the integrity of the politician which voters should note. Crimes on the level of dishonesty, violence, drug dealing,graft etc should bar them from standing.

Depends of the type of crime, amount of times its happened and the severity of it. Im all for 2nd chances but they’d have to show true transformation

Yes, but only with all the condition stated, served their sentence, not if committed during office and dependent on the crime committed

Yes we all make mistakes. But it should be judged on scale of conviction not if it’s pedofiler but yes if it’s for a bit of weed

Yes, but they ought to have to wait a certain amount of time, 5-10 years with a good record. Before they can represent our country.

As long as they show they’re not vulnerable to recidivism and if their work is in line with supporting people

Depending on the crime and their age.

Depending on the crime and age when committed. Everyone deserves a second chance.

only if a very minor crime

Only if a minor crime

We should only allow people that commit crime into our government.

Yes, if convictions are fully disclosed

yes, but depending on the crime that is commited

Only if they have new zealand citizenship

As long as the crime was not a felony violent or sexual, and they have finished their sentence

It depends on what the crime is, and how serious their sentence was and what they have been doing since their sentence ended

Yes, as long as it was not committed while in office, and was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime

only if he try to fight somethings right for people

Yes, as long as they can show they have grown and learnt from it. Everyone changes.

Yes if it was 10 years plus ago

Depends on the type of crime, age of offender at the time of the crime.

Yes as long as it was more than 10 years ago and a misdemeanor or low level crime like DIC

That would depend on weather they have changed to be a better person.

Only if it was a minor offence and they have had no reoccurring offences in the five year period before being a politician

Not unless get special permission after going through character assessment

If it wasnt that bad

It depends on the reason for the crime, E.G. self defence

Yes, but I think that should depend on the crime committed.

I think that it depends on what the crime they commited was and how long ago it was. If it was when they were younger I think it doesn't matter, but if it was in the last 5 years I think they shouldn't be allowed.

Only if the crime they were convicted of wasn't while they were in office and wasn't a clear attempt to abuse their power for personal gain.
Also if their crime was a flagrant violation of criminal law that ordinary citizens are convicted for, they should be allowed a probationary term where they are required to perform their duties under the scrutiny of public appointees with the power to dismiss them should they reoffend!

Yes if they can prove they have changed and if they show potiental

As long as the person has learned from what happened

Depends how what crime he/she did.

Yes as long as the crime was not a felony, violent or sexual crime

Depends on the crime and age / situation

They need to make a vow or something like that in order to serve in the office, and they need to finish serving their sentence and probably wait another 3 years to make sure they won't do it again.

Too complex.. depending on situation

If it was a minor crime, especially if committed when person was young, then it should not be taken into account.

Yes if it is a minor offence, but it must be disclosed and made public

It depends on the crime, the circumstances and the changes the person has made

Yes, but they must acknowledge their past crimes and let the voters know what it was and how long ago it was

It depends when, what the crime was and what the time was