4 ms·

An important detail: in France a "first instance" ruling can be appealed ("second instance"), and appealing is suspensive. That is whatever sentence has been de

by lloeki 2y ago

An important detail: in France a "first instance" ruling can be appealed ("second instance"), and appealing is suspensive. That is whatever sentence has been decided gets temporarily suspended until the appeal concludes. In this case the five year ineligibility sentence has a provisional execution clause, which means appeal will not be suspensive and the sentence must be carried out immediately. This last part is the one creating a heated debate around the 2027 presidential election.

captainbland 2y ago
It does seem like it would be a severe constitutional loophole to allow somebody who is appealing a sentence to run for president and then just pardon (which is also a presidential power in France) themselves, even though they've already been found guilty in a court.
- karpatic 2y ago
  If a jury can rule against the law, why shouldnt the voters.
  - TimorousBestie 2y ago
    Because juries (in some countries, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath ; however, includes France) take an oath to examine the evidence presented and judge impartially to the best of their ability. Voters don’t.
    - karpatic 2y ago
      At the presidential level I would say the law should follow the (will of the) people and not the other way around. After all, those irrational voters are the ones who created the law in the first place, in so many ways. As an aside, the more I think about someone being able to truly be impartial, the more I giggle. Myself included, of course.
- Agingcoder 2y ago
  The main idea here I think is that having someone who’s been embezzling money run for president would greatly undermine democratic institutions and the public’s faith in French institutions. However, the far right will claim it’s a political conspiracy and this will mostly have the same effect. French politicians have a long history of accusing judges who sentence politicians of being enemies of democracy - the idea being that crooks or not, the people should decide.

by lloeki 2y ago

captainbland 2y ago

It does seem like it would be a severe constitutional loophole to allow somebody who is appealing a sentence to run for president and then just pardon (which is also a presidential power in France) themselves, even though they've already been found guilty in a court.

karpatic 2y ago
If a jury can rule against the law, why shouldnt the voters.
- TimorousBestie 2y ago
  Because juries (in some countries, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath ; however, includes France) take an oath to examine the evidence presented and judge impartially to the best of their ability. Voters don’t.
  - karpatic 2y ago
    At the presidential level I would say the law should follow the (will of the) people and not the other way around. After all, those irrational voters are the ones who created the law in the first place, in so many ways. As an aside, the more I think about someone being able to truly be impartial, the more I giggle. Myself included, of course.
Agingcoder 2y ago
The main idea here I think is that having someone who’s been embezzling money run for president would greatly undermine democratic institutions and the public’s faith in French institutions. However, the far right will claim it’s a political conspiracy and this will mostly have the same effect. French politicians have a long history of accusing judges who sentence politicians of being enemies of democracy - the idea being that crooks or not, the people should decide.