News that Andre Curtis, who has just finished a prison sentence for his part in running a Ponzi scheme, is running for Parliament has prompted a lot of reaction. Olivia Riley went out to find out whether people thought those with a criminal conviction should be allowed to stand to sit as an MP.Andrew Goins, of Hamilton Parish, thought it depended on the crime and also believed that the time elapsed since the conviction should be factored into the decision. When asked whether convicted sex offenders, such as paedophiles, that have committed an offence more than ten years ago should be allowed to be MPs, he said: “Paedophile? Finito!”He explained that sex offenders should not be allowed to run regardless of when the crime occurred. He argued, however, that for other types of criminals, if ten years have past since they paid their debt to society, then they should be allowed to run.As more people were polled, it seemed that the phrase “it depends” grew increasingly popular.Another man, David Brown, said: “I guess it depends on the crime.”Mr Brown also explained that dishonesty offences, such as theft or embezzlement, must be looked at on a case-by-case basis and it is up to the voter to decide whether they believe the person running has changed.The Pembroke resident said that for certain crimes, such as murder, holding public office should not be permitted, and also said that sex offenders probably shouldn’t be allowed either.Naomi Buckley also responded to the question with “it depends on the crime”.She said criminals convicted of crimes such as murder or “holding up somebody with guns” should not be allowed to run.“If they’ve done it once the likelihood is they’ll do it again because some things cannot be corrected in life just because you’ve done your time,” said the Smith’s resident.She explained that those convicted of minor charges committed out of poor judgment or intoxication, for example, should be allowed to run.When asked whether those convicted of drug related offences should be allowed to run, she responded: “Again, it depends on the charge — whether it’s importation.”She explained that the monetary value of the drug being imported does not matter because drugs on the streets have a negative effect to society regardless.Others had very strong opinions against ex-convicts running for seats in Parliament.Warwick resident Annette Godfrey also believed that convicted criminals should not have the right to run, saying “I do not; I really do not [think they should be able to run].”She continued: “I think that’s what they were sentenced for, to be rehabbed. I think with an extensive amount of time it’s possible for that to happen, but they shouldn’t be allowed to [run].”However, one person did response with a “yes”.Warwick resident James Arnold said: “I would say yes. Because they’ve already paid their debt to society based on the law.”When asked whether dishonesty or theft-related crimes should matter, Mr Arnold replied: “I think they have a high probability of reoffending, but their life circumstances would be different at that point and maybe they wouldn’t have the incentive to do it again.”