NationStates Jolt Archive

Portugal will hold local elections in October. Several mayoral candidates are currently being investigated for possible crimes commited while in office, namely embezlement of public funds. There are even cases of defendants that will be subject to trial in October, while local elections are carried out. One female defendant is charged with twenty-one counts of apropriation of city hall money and receiving bribes from various building contractors while acting as mayor of the city of Felgueiras; she is running yet again for office in Felgueiras, and leading the polls.
So, do you think that defendants charged with crimes related to public service should not be allowed to run in local elections?

Portugal will hold local elections in October. Several mayoral candidates are currently being investigated for possible crimes commited while in office, namely embezlement of public funds. There are even cases of defendants that will be subject to trial in October, while local elections are carried out. One female defendant is charged with twenty-one counts of apropriation of city hall money and receiving bribes from various building contractors while acting as mayor of the city of Felgueiras; she is running yet again for office in Felgueiras, and leading the polls.
So, do you think that defendants charged with crimes related to public service should not be allowed to run in local elections?

Aren't there any semi-honest candidates out there? Sounds like the place is run by crooks.

If you bar defendents from running, you are essentially creating 'Guilty until proven Innocent.' You also open the door for a different kind of political weapon, spurious charges that would eventually be dismissed but are timed to bar a candidate from running during the elections.

So, yes-they should be allowed. Convicted ones are a different discussion.

Aren't there any semi-honest candidates out there? Sounds like the place is run by crooks.
well, generally local officials are seen as pretty honest persons...

If you bar defendents from running, you are essentially creating 'Guilty until proven Innocent.' You also open the door for a different kind of political weapon, spurious charges that would eventually be dismissed but are timed to bar a candidate from running during the elections.

So, yes-they should be allowed. Convicted ones are a different discussion.
But what if the charges arent deemed spurious by the district attorney office that enters a formal charge of the defendants? Isnt that already an acknowledgement that the charges arent as spurious as some might consider?

So, they haven't been convicted yet? Then they should be able to run, as they're innocent until then.

But what if the charges arent deemed spurious by the district attorney office that enters a formal charge of the defendants? Isnt that already an acknowledgement that the charges arent as spurious as some might consider?
The test is the trial itself, not the going to trial. You cannot begin punishment (such as baring them from running) before they've been tried. You are then unjustly punishing people for simply being accused.

1. The difference between a defendant and a convict has been pointed out already. Defendants must be allowed to run.

2. Convicts can run depending on the jurisdiction. In 1984, Congressman George Hansen of Idaho ran for re-election even though he had been convicted of receiving bribes and other crimes. (He happened to be my Congressman, so I know this.)

3. Some of the US Founding Fathers were convicted of crimes at some time during their lives.

Portugal will hold local elections in October. Several mayoral candidates are currently being investigated for possible crimes commited while in office, namely embezlement of public funds. There are even cases of defendants that will be subject to trial in October, while local elections are carried out. One female defendant is charged with twenty-one counts of apropriation of city hall money and receiving bribes from various building contractors while acting as mayor of the city of Felgueiras; she is running yet again for office in Felgueiras, and leading the polls.
So, do you think that defendants charged with crimes related to public service should not be allowed to run in local elections?
Does Portuguese law grant trial immunity to local officials?

I'd be in favour of letting defendents and even convicted criminals to run. If a majority of people are willing to vote for someone who has been convicted of accepting bribes, they really deserve what they get. Not to mention that people change. It should be up to the voters.

I don't think that anything but physically being in jail should prevent you from participating in politics by voting or being a candidate. Because, ultimately the government decides if you should be convicted or not. If you ban criminals from voting, we've seen in the USA that it opens the doors for all kinds of fraud, like rigging elections by "accidentally" banning honest citizens from voting.

It'd be a circular dependency, if the government was allowed to ban you from participating in democracy.

2. Convicts can run depending on the jurisdiction. In 1984, Congressman George Hansen of Idaho ran for re-election even though he had been convicted of receiving bribes and other crimes. (He happened to be my Congressman, so I know this.)

3. Some of the US Founding Fathers were convicted of crimes at some time during their lives.

American law is not really applicable to Portugal.

I think innocent people should be able to run for elected office.

The only argument against people under indictment or investigation running is this: if they become convicted after entering office it will cause unnecessary fuss and expense to run a special election.

This is a potentially significant problem. Deputies will run the government in the interim, and while duly elected it is not exactly the will of the people that they be in charge. Special elections can be confusing in some regards, and certainly expensive.

Does Portuguese law grant trial immunity to local officials?

During the election period only, candidates are immune from prossecution, unless caught, how do you say, red handed? :P

Still, if I believe that those that have been charged, should be able to run in a question of principle (innocent until proven otherwise), just by a question of honor, they should not have run to office.

But what if the charges arent deemed spurious by the district attorney office that enters a formal charge of the defendants? Isnt that already an acknowledgement that the charges arent as spurious as some might consider?
Well... not if the DA was running in the same election which he or she could well be.

Well... not if the DA was running in the same election which he or she could well be.

DAs can also file politically motivated charges even if they aren't running for office. Corruption knows no bounds, and more than one corrupt DA has gone after a political candidate as a favor to a politically influential friend.

So yes, people charged with crimes but not convicted of them should be allowed to run.

As for ex-cons - it depends on the crime. Murder, rape, robbery? Bar them from office. Public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, jaywalking? Let them run.

:p