3 ms·

I see countless discussions on HN about: - innocent people convicted in court in error - laws selectively enforced where this person never gets charged, yet t

by refurb 2y ago

I see countless discussions on HN about: - innocent people convicted in court in error - laws selectively enforced where this person never gets charged, yet this person gets put in prison for the exact same thing - a byzantine legal code that the average person can't understand ("show me the man, and I'll show you the crime") Now take that and layer on top a competitive legal system where your political opponent doesn't have to defeat you at the ballot box, they can just get you disqualified by having you convicted of a crime. It's a system that is ripe for abuse. Bobby Sands sticks out for me - a member of the Provisonal IRA who became a Member of Parliament while in British Prison. I thought it reflected quite well on the UK - despite this man committing violent acts in an effort to break Northern Ireland away from the UK, he was allowed to stand in Parliament of the very same system. Then look at the Singapore system - even a relatively minor conviction like defamation (a fine only) will disqualify you from office. A fact the ruling party has used again, and again and again to eliminate opposition politicians once they get popular enough.

mmooss 2y ago
No system or person is perfect; no god will come down and save us; we need to find solutions using human institutions. What also is ripe for abuse is a system where politicians have impunity for corruption. At least being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted requires several agencies and branches of government and a public trial that follows laws. Democracy has done very well in that regard. The US is an exception, in many ways, in that it generally won't prosecute current heads of state. Netanyahu is being prosecuted and investigated for another crime, even after abusing power to avoid it. France has charged sitting high officials, so have others.
- refurb 2y ago
  But what is gained from barring people convicted of a crime from holding public office? - Keeping people out with questionable character? - Preventing crimes from being committed while in office? Neither of those are all that convincing. Voters will be aware of the criminal past of any candidate. They can make their own personal judgement when they vote. And I’m not sure what you mean by democracy has “worked well in that regard except for the US”. If your goal is to ban people with criminal records to prevent corruption, there are plenty of democracies with a far worse track record when it comes to democracy than the US.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    If people cheat in a contest and you don't disqualify them, you give everyone an incentive to cheat: ideally they get away with not being found out, but even if they are found out their cheating can still have a positive RoI. The only way to keep things fair is to exclude those who deliberately flaunt the rules, as is the case here. But even aside from that, someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn't fit to enforce them.
    - refurb 2y ago
      > someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn’t fit to enforce them To give an American example, if someone deliberately broke Jim Crow laws in the South they should be disqualified from office? The problem with this approach is that it assumes court decisions are always just and correct. Based on numerous examples I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. Versus the opposite approach which says criminal convictions don’t automatically disqualify you, it’s up to the voters to decide if you’re fit for office.
      - Timon3 2y ago
        I don't think every criminal conviction should disqualify someone from running for office, but definitely every election-related crime. If you embezzle funds to instead market yourself for the election, who's to say you won't use your new government power for the same purpose? Who's to say that you won't use your new power to help your party colleagues get away with the same crime, but this time without the public knowing about it?
        refurb 2y ago
        Fair point. So if we create a system that allows people to be banned from holding political office how do we stop it from being abused? We know that justice is subjective, and mistakes can be made. I would point to Singapore as an example where defamation laws are routinely used to prevent opposition politicians from holding office.

by refurb 2y ago

mmooss 2y ago

No system or person is perfect; no god will come down and save us; we need to find solutions using human institutions. What also is ripe for abuse is a system where politicians have impunity for corruption. At least being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted requires several agencies and branches of government and a public trial that follows laws. Democracy has done very well in that regard. The US is an exception, in many ways, in that it generally won't prosecute current heads of state. Netanyahu is being prosecuted and investigated for another crime, even after abusing power to avoid it. France has charged sitting high officials, so have others.

refurb 2y ago
But what is gained from barring people convicted of a crime from holding public office? - Keeping people out with questionable character? - Preventing crimes from being committed while in office? Neither of those are all that convincing. Voters will be aware of the criminal past of any candidate. They can make their own personal judgement when they vote. And I’m not sure what you mean by democracy has “worked well in that regard except for the US”. If your goal is to ban people with criminal records to prevent corruption, there are plenty of democracies with a far worse track record when it comes to democracy than the US.
- Timon3 2y ago
  If people cheat in a contest and you don't disqualify them, you give everyone an incentive to cheat: ideally they get away with not being found out, but even if they are found out their cheating can still have a positive RoI. The only way to keep things fair is to exclude those who deliberately flaunt the rules, as is the case here. But even aside from that, someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn't fit to enforce them.
  - refurb 2y ago
    > someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn’t fit to enforce them To give an American example, if someone deliberately broke Jim Crow laws in the South they should be disqualified from office? The problem with this approach is that it assumes court decisions are always just and correct. Based on numerous examples I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. Versus the opposite approach which says criminal convictions don’t automatically disqualify you, it’s up to the voters to decide if you’re fit for office.
    - Timon3 2y ago
      I don't think every criminal conviction should disqualify someone from running for office, but definitely every election-related crime. If you embezzle funds to instead market yourself for the election, who's to say you won't use your new government power for the same purpose? Who's to say that you won't use your new power to help your party colleagues get away with the same crime, but this time without the public knowing about it?
      - refurb 2y ago
        Fair point. So if we create a system that allows people to be banned from holding political office how do we stop it from being abused? We know that justice is subjective, and mistakes can be made. I would point to Singapore as an example where defamation laws are routinely used to prevent opposition politicians from holding office.