Should a politician, who has been formerly convicted of a crime, be allowed to run for office?
That's completely unfair: No one is above the law. All or nothing; either let all criminals run for…
Political opposition should indeed be protected, but that doesn't mean we should give a free pass to anyone claiming persecution. Nuance is crucial, so let's apply it to your points. Take Richard Nixon, for example. He was pardoned to avoid further division, but his crimes were real. Should we have allowed him to run again, arguing that his prosecution was politically motivated?
If we're talking about nuance, then let's be consistent. Not every conviction is a witch hunt. By discrediting the justice system wholesale, we risk undermining the rule of law itself. How do you propose we discern genuine political persecution from legitimate legal accountability without compromising the integrity of our legal system?
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.
Join in on more popular conversations.