Section 7 of Article II of the Pennsylvania Constitution bans anyone convicted of embezzling public money, bribery, perjury or “other infamous crime” from holding state office. Domestic violence is not now considered one of the infamous crimes. Adding it is not as simple a matter as it may appear.

State representative Scott Conklin, D-Centre, wants to change the state constitution to forbid people who have been convicted of domestic violence from serving in the General Assembly or holding other state offices, including judicial positions. The amendment will add “or for physically or sexually abusing a family or household member” at three places in the constitution.

Embezzlement, bribery and perjury are all violations of the legislators’ duties to the people. The law now treats other actions as matters for the voters to evaluate. It says in effect: Don’t abuse your office, but otherwise you may do whatever your voters will allow.

Why expand the coverage in this way? Mr. Conklin explains: “Combating domestic violence and reducing these deadly statistics requires legislators with integrity to act in the public good to pass the necessary legislation to reduce rates and protect victims. Legislators who themselves have been convicted of domestic violence-related crimes can not be trusted to act ethically on behalf of domestic violence victims.”

Who could disagree? Mr. Conklin’s proposal affirms a basic moral intuition: domestic violence is, among many other things, the abuse of a deeply intimate trust, the trust of living together. If a person will abuse that trust, surely he or she is not worthy of the people’s trust, either.

And yet there is another principle at stake here, which is the ancient idea that those who’ve been convicted of a crime and taken their punishment have paid their debt to society, and should be given a clean slate. Laws that restrict employment after incarceration are generally unjust, unless they are very narrowly tailored, such as restricting child sexual abusers from working with children. The state should always tread carefully when imposing post-incarceration punishments. Full reconciliation with society must, in most cases, be made possible.

Further, many other crimes involve breaches of trust that should alarm the public. Should those be disqualifying, as well? Or should the voters decide on a case by case basis?

Perhaps the answer is right in Mr. Conklin’s proposal: As a constitutional amendment, the policy will have to be voted on by the people of the commonwealth, should it pass both chambers in consecutive sessions. That way, the people can decide for themselves if they want to restrict their own choices.

First Published: June 23, 2022, 4:00 a.m.