As I am following the hysteria about the aforementioned J.J., who is currently serving a final sentence, I decided to share my view on this problematic dilemma:
Whether a person is wrongly or rightly convicted and sent to prison in his own opinion and that of his associates, he is guilty according to the law and lawfully sent to prison until he has served his sentence or until the judgment is overturned.
Politicians and voters who support a convicted prisoner and believe he is innocent must still follow the law, but they can work towards seeking an overturn of the conviction or early release - but it is not legal to take parallel paths and shortcuts to get a convicted and imprisoned prisoner into Parliament or eventually even into government during the period of the conviction and sentence. During this period, the convicted person cannot be elected to public office, which requires integrity.
Even if nominated by a genuine majority of the population, they will have to wait for the prison sentence to expire or for the verdict to be overturned.There is no other way that is legal! The incomprehensible insistence on illegally forcing a convicted prisoner to take a mandate, or even more, while serving his sentence should be redirected into legitimate efforts to overturn the judgment insofar as there are legal legal channels or to get the law changed if they do not think it is appropriate. Anything else is illegal and criminal.
Nor are MPs wrong to refuse a convicted person a mandate. But if he is ever acquitted, they can reconsider the changed circumstances and make a new decision.