Should a conviction affect your ability to vote or run?

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.

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.

Some current TDs and MEPs have been in prison:

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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