Criminal Convictions

[dimples]

I understand that those standing for office are required to declare their criminal convictions.

Are these made public? If so where do I find them?

I want to know what I am voting for..

[Bea]

Can always ask at the hustings too .

[dimples]

Hmm. Yes of course, however, referring to another thread, can we believe what we are told.

I would rather see the document where convictions are declared - and verified!

[Nobody]

Aug 22, 2008 19:23:20 GMT dimples said:

I understand that those standing for office are required to declare their criminal convictions.

Are these made public? If so where do I find them?

I want to know what I am voting for..

The answer to your question will probably be found with the States Geffe.

www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/

[dimples]

Thanks Jimi but can you be more specific. Can't see anything there relating to it

[Nobody]

No, you won't find it on the site. Email the Greffe and ask, and they'll be able to explain how to go about getting the info.

[Jeremy Strickland]

Take a look at this. Article 9 deals with declarations of convictions. The presiding officer at the nomination meeting will read out the declaration of each candidate.

www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce/htm/LawFiles/2005/l-08-2005.htm

[Nobody]

It seems that under the Rehabilitation of Offenders law spent convictions aren't required to be disclosed, which I personally think is wrong. In my view, when one is seeking a position of such (supposedly!) high integrity as public office, one should be able to exhibit the personal integrity to be 100% open and honest about all convictions one may hold.

Suffice to say at least one well known politician has had his backside saved by the Rehabilitation of Offenders act.

Under our current law (and of course, were he alive today) The Beast of Jersey could stand in the forthcoming elections without having to reveal his criminal past. That's not an acceptable situation really, is it?

[Jeremy Strickland]

Jimi, I don't think that is the case. The key word is 'notwithstanding' the Rehabilitation Law. Therefore all the offences listed will disqualify someone from standing.
If you mean Paisnel's convictions then I believe rape and sodomy would have barred him.
It is a selective list, and does omit some categories of offences.

[Bea]

Have some mixed feeling about this conviction issue .Think most people who have really lived ,have sailed close to the wind ,or had some run in with authority in their life time .
Maybe shows some sense of questioning authority,defying conventions, and what is wrong with being a bit rebellious ,does it not show some sense of character?
Should someone who was caught with a spliff aged 17,be guilty of that crime 40 years later.?
Many of the older generation ,would write someone off ,because of that ,because in their eyes,it is so unacceptable culturally ,compared to a businessman who makes them selves bankrupt ,owning thousands to ordinary people ,to set themselves up ,weeks later with a new company .
Paying an accountant to cook your books and avoid paying your tax obligations ,is probably of more detriment to society,than someone who decides to relieve their bladder as a one off action in a shop doorway ,because all public toilets are closed after midnight.
What is regarded as a crime to some ,is regarded as high jinks to others ,or those with a broader outlook on life.
where do we draw the line? Do we want people who have never really lived,or have those that have had brushes with authority,who know what the real world is all about ?
As a caveat, I do think certain offences like child abuse are unforgiveable ,they might pay the price in so far as completing a sentence,but not convinced that rehabilitation from some offences is that easy .
statistics would show that paedophiles are hard to rehabilitate,spliff users and certain actions done under the influence of alcohol ,you can move on from though,and go on to lead a good life.

[Nobody]

Aug 30, 2008 16:26:56 GMT Jeremy Strickland said:

Jimi, I don't think that is the case. The key word is 'notwithstanding' the Rehabilitation Law. Therefore all the offences listed will disqualify someone from standing.
If you mean Paisnel's convictions then I believe rape and sodomy would have barred him.
It is a selective list, and does omit some categories of offences.

I hang my head in embarrasment, Jez....that's what comes of taking 5 seconds to read a 50 page document!

At the same time I also misread a different site regarding the Rehabilitation of Offenders act, as saying that prison sentences over 2.5 years in length were spent after 10 years, when infact sentences over that length can never be spent.

So as you can see, I was having something of an off-day when I rushed into the fray with my response....which is rather bad on my part, as I usually thoroughly check my info before ranting!

Would it make a difference if I went back and edited the original post to make my claim "categorical"? From what I've seen the use of that word allows one to screw-up bigtime with their assertions, yet walk away clean and dry without being held to account for their mistake? ;D

[dimples]

Bea, I agree with your view to an extent.

However, if a person has been convicted as an adult for e.g. a drugs offence, as opposed to youthful rebellion, then is he the kind of person who should be making decisions on, e.g. drug policy or law in the island?

If said candidate were to apply to become a police officer they would be turned away for such a criminal past, while speeding, drunk and disorderly or other minor offences would not be looked at with the same degree of severity.

In my humble opinion, if a person would fail to be accepted into the police force for a certain previous conviction (all are declarable I believe) then he/she should not be in any position of public power.