by Henry Ko, Palo Alto
With the 2024 election just around the corner, the presidential candidates are narrowing down. One of the politicians who is running for president has a criminal record, and his running for the top spot in our nation has provoked some controversy. Despite concerns about this candidate, in general, I think politicians with a criminal record should be able to run for president. The government is not in complete power over the citizens who vote; the politician’s thoughts may have changed since the time of the wrongdoing; and the criminal record itself depends on the severity.
The first reason I think politicians should be able to run for office even with a criminal record is that the government doesn’t get to decide on what voters get to think. Because our country is a democracy, we have citizens that elect the president. This is different from some other countries, like Iran, China, or Russia, where the government does all the electing. However, because we are a democracy, we rely on our people to make the right decisions, not following whatever the government thinks is best. Trusting our people to make the right decisions is more important than electing a politician that is only approved within limits. Also, one benefit of our democracy is that it allows a majority of people to be happy about the political decisions of the elected president.
The second reason I think politicians with a criminal record should be able to run for office is because the politician’s decisions and thoughts might be different from when they committed the act of wrongdoing. An example is in the French novel Les Misérables by Victor Hugo. The main character of this historical fiction book is a man named Jean Valjean. At first, he is a poor beggar who gets in some trouble after stealing from a bakery. He is sentenced to years in prison, where his keeper is a kind priest. After Jean is released, he is invited to the priest’s house, where Jean sees all the valuables. He steals some of the valuable materials, and he is caught. However, this time the kind priest lies and tells the officers that he gave them to Jean. Jean is moved by the priest’s kindness and eventually goes on to be a successful man who donates to shelters and beggars. This story is important because it shows that any person’s heart, even with a criminal record, can change. In conclusion, you can’t just look at the criminal record a politician might have and judge them solely based on that.
The final reason I think the office should be open for politicians with criminal records is because the criminal record itself might not be so severe. One such instance happened in South Korea, when Kim Dae-Jung, a man with a minor criminal record, ran for prime minister. Although many people voted against him because he had committed an offense, he was elected. In his years as the prime minister, he led the downfall of a dictator named Park Jung-Hee. Although Kim created controversy with his election, he helped South Korea avoid a major war with North Korea. He also won the Nobel Peace Prize for trying to improve the relationship between the Koreas with a pact called the Sunshine Policy. This example is important because Kim Dae-Jung illustrates that a criminal record shouldn’t stop a politician from making good decisions. At times, the criminal offense might be impactful when voting, but we shouldn’t treat all criminal records the same.
The impending U.S. election has brought lots of controversy about politicians with a criminal record running for president. I think that they should be allowed to run because our country is a democracy; people can have differentiating beliefs from when they were a criminal; and the criminal record shouldn’t absolutely change the way we view our candidates. Because we are in the present day, we shouldn’t use this election as the only example of whether or not to vote for politicians with criminal records. We can’t just take one glance at the news to make our decision. Sometimes, taking a second look is necessary.