• proudblond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can you elaborate? My knee-jerk reaction is to be against it, but I haven’t thought about it a whole lot and I’d be interested to know why you have decided on the opposite.

    • qantravon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      It means if there was an actual politically motivated prosecution, that wouldn’t stop someone from winning. ie. If Trump had managed to make some fake charge against Biden stick in 2020, if the people still wanted Biden to be president, he could be.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think it’s a powerful statement that - despite all the structural checks & balances and systems of appeal - we consider political charges and kangaroo courts a realistic possibility. It’s not just Alito’s flags - this is a long simmering loss of faith.

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Let us know how you get from “politically motivated prosecution” to 12 jurors (some of which are Trump supporters) finding guilt. Convicted felons by jury trial should not be public servants and most state Constitutions clearly state that (Florida for example).

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        if there was an actual politically motivated prosecution

        Which is, of course, the unsubstantiated claim that Trump has been making.

        Despite this entire trial not being under the jurisdiction or control of his political rival.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      In this case it seems easy to be against it because a widely unpopular candidate is the one being prosecuted.

      However, allowing felons to run for office precludes the ability for the government to silence political dissidents by making up laws/falsifying evidence that they can be imprisoned for.

      The risk of a Trump presidency is still on the table, but the US can avoid situations like what happened to Navalny in Russia as well.

      In the 1920 election, Eugene Debs campaigned as the socialist nominee for president from prison, having been imprisoned for advocating draft dodging. That is the sort of candidate I would still support, even from behind bars.

    • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Just because you’re a felon doesn’t mean you’re not a citizen and part of the country. As such, you should be able to partake in democracy in all possible ways as well.

      I really dislike this punitive mindset of completely ruining someone’s life for being convicted of a crime. People make mistakes, but we don’t want to exclude them from society, we want to reform them and bring them back in. So yeah, I think, even excluding all this political bs, that no person should have their right to vote or run taken from them.