There has been considerable debate in recent days over the suitability of people with past criminal convictions running for office.There was a time when a conviction, even one that was relatively minor, was sufficient to prevent a person from running.In fact some countries, and US states, do bar people with criminal records from seeking election. Some states also bar people with criminal records from voting, although that was often racially driven in the Jim Crow era.Nonetheless, the traditional view of crime and punishment holds that people with a criminal past forfeit certain rights.Times have changed, and it is now pretty widely recognised that people who have paid their so-called debt to society should enjoy basic rights and privileges of citizenship.There’s the further idea that people go to prison for rehabilitation — which is why they are now correctional facilities and not prisons — and on release, should be treated like “normal people”, at least until proven otherwise.Indeed, many convictions can now be “spent”. After a certain period of time it is illegal for them to be held against a person.That’s understandable and right. Many people commit youthful indiscretions and go on to lead blameless lives, so they should not have to carry a conviction around which can prevent them from getting employment, decent housing and the like.Indeed, Bermuda has seen former criminals go on to lead successful lives, and to put their time behind bars to good use. Shawn Crockwell and Charles Richardson are prominent examples of this. Each committed a serious crime, but in prison devoted themselves to their legal studies and went on to be Called to the Bar where they are well respected. And Mr Crockwell is a One Bermuda Alliance MP.Still, it can be jarring to see a former criminal actually debate laws when they have broken them in the past, and it is for this reason that this issue remains alive.The reality is that every case is different. Some people go to prison, fail to rehabilitate and return to a life of crime.Others leave prison and lead admirable lives.There is, rightly, nothing to stop people with previous convictions from seeking office.But they do so in the knowledge that their past is part of their record, and that it will be held up to scrutiny and debated.Like it or not, they will be held to higher standards than other candidates who have not been convicted of a crime, and it may be that their honesty and judgment will be queried more often and more intensely.But there are, unquestionably, people who have served time, paid their debt and whose experiences can help them to lead and govern more wisely.In some cases, they may recognise that justice needs to be tempered with compassion. In others, they will know better than the rest of the public when some people are irredeemably criminal.In a society that has still to get rehabilitation right, and one in which too many people commit crimes and end up in prison, they can bring insight to this pressing issue, which, when coupled with the views of other legislators, may help bring about better policies on crime prevention and rehabilitation.In the end, all candidates will be judged on their past records, warts and all.But no one should be disqualified from running because of a criminal record. Instead the voters must decide if a candidate is worthy of their trust.