The only way to keep things fair is to exclude those who deliberately flaunt the rules, as is the case here.
But even aside from that, someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn't fit to enforce them.
To give an American example, if someone deliberately broke Jim Crow laws in the South they should be disqualified from office?
The problem with this approach is that it assumes court decisions are always just and correct. Based on numerous examples I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption.
Versus the opposite approach which says criminal convictions don’t automatically disqualify you, it’s up to the voters to decide if you’re fit for office.
Who's to say that you won't use your new power to help your party colleagues get away with the same crime, but this time without the public knowing about it?
So if we create a system that allows people to be banned from holding political office how do we stop it from being abused?
We know that justice is subjective, and mistakes can be made.
I would point to Singapore as an example where defamation laws are routinely used to prevent opposition politicians from holding office.
Unless a justice system is captured by one party (like in the US), I trust it more to determine the truth than I trust politicians that want to abuse such "loopholes".
My father straight up told me: I know nothing of this case, but it's obviously a set-up by leftist judges. People don't care about the truth anymore...
- Keeping people out with questionable character?
- Preventing crimes from being committed while in office?
Neither of those are all that convincing. Voters will be aware of the criminal past of any candidate. They can make their own personal judgement when they vote.
And I’m not sure what you mean by democracy has “worked well in that regard except for the US”.
If your goal is to ban people with criminal records to prevent corruption, there are plenty of democracies with a far worse track record when it comes to democracy than the US.