Should ex-cons run for public office

**R8RBOB** · August-19-09, 08:19 AM

Reading the story of Raphael Johnson, I know that man deserve a second chance when they have done wrong. Mr. Johnson is one of those individuals that stepped up and decided that he was going to dedicate his life to doing good.

However, I can't support an ex-con for the city council. It would throw more dirt onto a city that has received enough dirt to be covered for the next 20 years. Detroit can not have a murderer serving the public in an elected position. I have no problem with Mr. Johnson serving the public but it cannot be in city council chambers. I hope more people that are in the same situation as Mr. Johnson use him as an example on how to make things right, but running for public office, no.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...-second-chance

**kraig** · August-19-09, 08:42 AM

As far as I can tell, he's doing a lot of good things in the here and now. That's more than I can say about most of the other candidates. I'll take him over some of those clowns that are currently on council.

However, I do understand and respect your decision.

Buy American · August-19-09, 09:14 AM

I categorically feel that people with felonies, murder convictions, extensive records, etc., do not belong on the council or have any positions in government. We have enough people who were elected to office that became criminals after the fact.

I appreciate that some make new lives, see the error of their old ways and dedicate themselves to doing good, but they don't need to be making decisions where other people's lives depend on what they decide.

**kraig** · August-19-09, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Buy American

I categorically feel that people with felonies, murder convictions, extensive records, etc., do not belong on the council or have any positions in government. We have enough people who were elected to office that became criminals after the fact.

I appreciate that some make new lives, see the error of their old ways and dedicate themselves to doing good, but they don't need to be making decisions where other people's lives depend on what they decide.

Do you have a reason why not?

**Blueidone** · August-19-09, 09:48 AM

I agree with BuyAmerican, and my reasons are:

1. There are plenty of ways to do good, if in fact, they have changed. Volunteer...work with a non-profit...serve on a committee or commission.

2. Obviously, a felon had a lapse in good judgment at some point in their life. I would not want someone who lacks good judgment in a position of authority.

I realize that we all make bad decisions sometimes, but we all don't make bad decisions that land us in court or in jail. I also realize that at this point in time, there is no restriction under the law to keep these people from running for office. However, it would certainly keep me from voting for them.

**Locke09** · August-19-09, 10:02 AM

Perhaps when you break the law you should forfeit the right to become a Lawmaker forever. Council does create "laws" in the form of ordinances.

On the other hand, we humans are not perfect judges and so I am always afraid when we say something should "always" or "never" be. So, there must be an opportunity for exceptions. Is Mr. Johnson worthy of an exception? Are there others on the ballot who are more worthy of the position than he is? All other things being equal, the person who tried to live all of their life making the right decisions gets the nod from me.

**R8RBOB** · August-19-09, 10:06 AM

It would not be in Detroit's interest to have a man who was convicted of second-degree murder as a councilman. I am sure that Johnson can be a benefit to his community, in fact based on the stories about him, he is doing what is expected of him. As I stated earlier, I just wished more ex-cons would give back like Mr. Johnson has but he doesn't need CC to be given a second chance. He already got it.

Buy American · August-19-09, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by kraig

Do you have a reason why not?

Maybe you should ask the family of Johnny Harvard that question. Johnson took Mr. Harvards voting privilege away when he shot and killed him in 1992.

**iheartthed** · August-19-09, 10:13 AM

I'm sure that there must be a more pressing issue to be worried about in Detroit right now.

**kraig** · August-19-09, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Buy American

Maybe you should ask the family of Johnny Harvard that question. Johnson took Mr. Harvards voting privilege away when he shot and killed him in 1992.

I can understand that. In their position, I would never support someone that took away someone from my family. Subsequently to me asking you the question, others have posted about not trusting his judgement. Which is totally understandable. I'm not questioning or judging anyone's decision. I was simply interested in getting an expanded point of view in the logic behind your decision, since you were the one that made the post, that's all.

**kraig** · August-19-09, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm sure that there must be a more pressing issue to be worried about in Detroit right now.

But I'm sure you don't mind us deciding what issues we choose to discuss. Thanks. After all, if you're not interested in a subject, there's always the options of not reading and not posting.

**iheartthed** · August-19-09, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by kraig

But I'm sure you don't mind us deciding what issues we choose to discuss. Thanks. After all, if you're not interested in a subject, there's always the options of not reading and not posting.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. There are more pressing issues in Detroit right now that need to be addressed than whether to implement a blanket ban of ex convicts from holding political office. What happened to being objective in your decision making? Why do you need another rule to limit your options?

With Detroit in such dire straits right now, the city can't really be choosy about good leadership. If that good leadership comes in the form of an ex-convict then so be it. Frankly, from reading the article about Raphael Johnson in the News this morning I'd be more inclined to vote for him today -- as opposed to yesterday when I didn't know his name -- because of the lessons that he's learned from his experience as a convicted felon. And I've never in my life had a citation more serious than a speeding ticket.

**kraig** · August-19-09, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. There are more pressing issues in Detroit right now that need to be addressed than whether to implement a blanket ban of ex convicts from holding political office. What happened to being objective in your decision making? Why do you need another rule to limit your options?

With Detroit in such dire straits right now, the city can't really be choosy about good leadership. If that good leadership comes in the form of an ex-convict then so be it. Frankly, from reading the article about Raphael Johnson in the News this morning I'd be more inclined to vote for him today -- as opposed to yesterday when I didn't know his name -- because of the lessons that he's learned from his experience as a convicted felon. And I've never in my life had a citation more serious than a speeding ticket.

That's a whole lot clearer than one vague line. Good stuff.

**jams** · August-19-09, 11:02 AM

Mandela and Ghandi were ex-cons.

**R8RBOB** · August-19-09, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by jams

Mandela and Ghandi were ex-cons.

Good try, but Mandela went to jail[[wrongly) fighting apartheid and Gandhi was a spiritual leader not the elected prime minister during British rule of India. You can't use these two as an example of convicted murderers running for public office.

Buy American · August-19-09, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. There are more pressing issues in Detroit right now that need to be addressed than whether to implement a blanket ban of ex convicts from holding political office. What happened to being objective in your decision making? Why do you need another rule to limit your options?

With Detroit in such dire straits right now, the city can't really be choosy about good leadership. If that good leadership comes in the form of an ex-convict then so be it. Frankly, from reading the article about Raphael Johnson in the News this morning I'd be more inclined to vote for him today -- as opposed to yesterday when I didn't know his name -- because of the lessons that he's learned from his experience as a convicted felon. And I've never in my life had a citation more serious than a speeding ticket.

I agree there are more pressing issues in Detroit and debating about whether a convicted murderer should be able to run for office shouldn't be one of those issues...it should be a non-issue, meaning there should be specific laws in the City Charter stating that NO felons can fun for public office, period! There are plenty of good people out there [[not incinuating that Johnson isn't a "good" person today), who are free from convictions, not felons and are able to run for office. Mr. Johnson made his choices back in the 90's. He can do better somewhere else.

**iheartthed** · August-19-09, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Buy American

I agree there are more pressing issues in Detroit and debating about whether a convicted murderer should be able to run for office shouldn't be one of those issues...it should be a non-issue, meaning there should be specific laws in the City Charter stating that NO felons can fun for public office, period! There are plenty of good people out there [[not incinuating that Johnson isn't a "good" person today), who are free from convictions, not felons and are able to run for office. Mr. Johnson made his choices back in the 90's. He can do better somewhere else.

Why? Because of the bad publicity it would attractive from the media? Because voters aren't smart enough to choose good ex-felons from bad ex-felons? Because it would set a bad image for Detroit youth?

My first issue with writing this into law, as you propose, is that "felon" is a very broad term. You can be convicted of a felony for accidentally hitting a person who is in the street while you are driving your car. Most reasonable people would not, in most cases, equate involuntary manslaughter with second degree murder [[Mr. Johnson's conviction), or armed robbery.

Secondly, I'm all about choosing politicians on substance over superficial... And barring candidates because of past actions -- actions for which they have already paid the price of justice -- is just superficial, IMO.

But most importantly, it just seems a bit anti-democratic to start barring people from potentially holding office for past mistakes that are inconsequential to the duties of the office.

Buy American · August-19-09, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why? Because of the bad publicity it would attractive from the media? Because voters aren't smart enough to choose good ex-felons from bad ex-felons? Because it would set a bad image for Detroit youth?

My first issue with writing this into law, as you propose, is that "felon" is a very broad term. You can be convicted of a felony for accidentally hitting a person who is in the street while you are driving your car. Most reasonable people would not, in most cases, equate involuntary manslaughter with second degree murder [[Mr. Johnson's conviction), or armed robbery.

Secondly, I'm all about choosing politicians on substance over superficial... And barring candidates because of past actions -- actions for which they have already paid the price of justice -- is just superficial, IMO.

But most importantly, it just seems a bit anti-democratic to start barring people from potentially holding office for past mistakes that are inconsequential to the duties of the office.

I respect your opinion but don't agree with it.

**LeannaM** · August-19-09, 01:38 PM

When I first saw the title I thought it was going to be about Kwame.

I'm not sure I could vote for an ex-con. With a major charge, I don't know if I would entrust them with too many responsibilities.

And you're right, it wouldn't reflect well on the city.

**Novack** · August-19-09, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Good try, but Mandela went to jail[[wrongly) fighting apartheid and Gandhi was a spiritual leader not the elected prime minister during British rule of India. You can't use these two as an example of convicted murderers running for public office.

Ahhhh Mandela broke the laws of his land. Soooooo he was a CRIMINAL. And Gandhi was a freakin revolutionary which made him aaaaaa CRIMINAL

There is no "wrongly" when it comes down to if he did or didn't it. As far as his country's standards he was. As most of us are. I saw half the city blow a red light or violate the speed limit this week alone.

So maybe excons are okay to run for office, but maybe violent offenders should not.

**R8RBOB** · August-19-09, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Novack

Ahhhh Mandela broke the laws of his land. Soooooo he was a CRIMINAL. And Gandhi was a freakin revolutionary which made him aaaaaa CRIMINAL

There is no "wrongly" when it comes down to if he did or didn't it. As far as his country's standards he was. As most of us are. I saw half the city blow a red light or violate the speed limit this week alone.

So maybe excons are okay to run for office, but maybe violent offenders should not.

I say to you...apples to oranges.

But on the real, this would not be a question because in most cities, counties, states, the federal government a convicted felon would not be able to run for public office much less be able to vote, but this is Detroit. Let me say it again: this is Detroit.

**iheartthed** · August-19-09, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

I say to you...apples to oranges.

But on the real, this would not be a question because in most cities, counties, states, the federal government a convicted felon would not be able to run for public office much less be able to vote, but this is Detroit. Let me say it again: this is Detroit.

Marion Barry

**R8RBOB** · August-19-09, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Marion Barry

I knew someone would use Marion Barry as an example and I say this: I would have not voted for him, however, if it helps your point Monica Conyers received votes in the primary.

**iheartthed** · August-19-09, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

I knew someone would use Marion Barry as an example and I say this: I would have not voted for him, however, if it helps your point Monica Conyers received votes in the primary.

My point is that other places allow ex-cons to run for public office. This isn't just Detroit.

**R8RBOB** · August-19-09, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

My point is that other places allow ex-cons to run for public office. This isn't just Detroit.

I'm sure there are other places but if read my comment, I said "most" and not "all." I am aware of municipalities having lax rules regarding felons running for public office. Another reason why the current charter has to be burned and rewritten.