But, what if from now on every politician has to at least be a police officer or successful police applicant that would show some concern as to serve and protect, some fear as to whether he would lose his government job? We do not want lazy politicians any more than we wot want police who are; I don't know. It’s a common frustration to feel like there’s one set of rules for "us" and another for "them." The reality is a bit of a mix: while politicians aren't legally allowed to "get away" with crimes, the way they are held accountable for personal vs. professional failings is very different. Here is the breakdown of how the law treats these two scenarios: 1. Personal Crimes (The "Stop Light" Rule) Politicians are generally not immune to the same laws as everyone else when it comes to their private lives. * Traffic Violations: If a politician runs a red light or gets a speeding ticket, they are legally required to pay it just like any other citizen. Their "parliamentary privilege" or "legislative immunity" usually only covers things said or done inside the legislature (to ensure they can debate freely). * Criminal Offenses: For serious crimes (theft, assault, etc.), they can be arrested and prosecuted. In many countries, being convicted of a serious crime automatically triggers their removal from office. * Why it feels like they "get away with it": Often, it’s not a lack of law, but a matter of resources. A high-profile politician can afford the best legal defense, which might result in charges being dropped or reduced in ways a regular citizen couldn’t manage. 2. Failure to Provide Services (The "Job Performance" Issue) This is where things get tricky. Failing to ensure benefits are paid or that services reach citizens is usually seen as a political or administrative failure, not a "crime." * Policy vs. Law: If a politician makes a bad policy that leads to service delays, it isn't a crime because they have the legal authority to manage those budgets. You can't usually put a politician in jail for being "bad at their job." * Sovereign/Official Immunity: Governments often have "immunity" from being sued for certain policy decisions. This is to prevent the courts from constantly overriding the decisions of elected officials. * The "Punishment": The intended "punishment" for these failures isn't a jail cell; it’s the ballot box. If they fail to provide services, the system is designed for them to be voted out. * When it becomes a crime: It only crosses into criminal territory if there is corruption (e.g., they took a bribe to withhold benefits) or gross negligence that violates specific human rights laws.

But, what if from now on every politician has to at least be a police officer or successful police applicant that would show some concern as to serve and protect, some fear as to whether  he would  lose his government job? We do not want lazy politicians any more than we wot want police who are; I don't know. 

 It’s a common frustration to feel like there’s one set of rules for "us" and another for "them." The reality is a bit of a mix: while politicians aren't legally allowed to "get away" with crimes, the way they are held accountable for personal vs. professional failings is very different.

Here is the breakdown of how the law treats these two scenarios:

1. Personal Crimes (The "Stop Light" Rule)

Politicians are generally not immune to the same laws as everyone else when it comes to their private lives.

 * Traffic Violations: If a politician runs a red light or gets a speeding ticket, they are legally required to pay it just like any other citizen. Their "parliamentary privilege" or "legislative immunity" usually only covers things said or done inside the legislature (to ensure they can debate freely).

 * Criminal Offenses: For serious crimes (theft, assault, etc.), they can be arrested and prosecuted. In many countries, being convicted of a serious crime automatically triggers their removal from office.

 * Why it feels like they "get away with it": Often, it’s not a lack of law, but a matter of resources. A high-profile politician can afford the best legal defense, which might result in charges being dropped or reduced in ways a regular citizen couldn’t manage.

2. Failure to Provide Services (The "Job Performance" Issue)

This is where things get tricky. Failing to ensure benefits are paid or that services reach citizens is usually seen as a political or administrative failure, not a "crime."

 * Policy vs. Law: If a politician makes a bad policy that leads to service delays, it isn't a crime because they have the legal authority to manage those budgets. You can't usually put a politician in jail for being "bad at their job."

 * Sovereign/Official Immunity: Governments often have "immunity" from being sued for certain policy decisions. This is to prevent the courts from constantly overriding the decisions of elected officials. But they cannot make decisions that are actually the commission of genocide. A failure to provide benefits to all is a genocide offence when some in the  population that are identifiable as a group  are not paid as individuals living within a certain geographic location. This is an emergency.  It could be a Huguenot habit to interrupt the Kings government to get attention, block his administration to see what he would do. 

 * The "Punishment": The intended "punishment" for these failures isn't a jail cell; it’s the ballot box. If they fail to provide services, the system is designed for them to be voted out.

 * When it becomes a crime: It only crosses into criminal territory if there is corruption (e.g., they took a bribe to withhold benefits) or gross negligence that violates specific human rights laws.

Summary of Accountability

| Type of Act | Accountability Mechanism |

|---|---|

| Running a Red Light | Traffic Court / Fines |

| Theft or Assault | Criminal Court / Prison / Removal from office |

| Failing to provide services | Elections / Public Inquiry / Lawsuits against the Department |

| Taking a Bribe | Anti-Corruption Laws / Criminal Prosecution |

/////

It is a common perception that politicians live by a different set of rules. While they are legally bound by the same criminal laws as everyone else, the way they are held accountable for personal mistakes versus professional failures varies significantly.

Here is the reality of how the law treats these two scenarios:

1. Personal Crimes (The "Stop Light" Rule)

Politicians are not immune to standard criminal laws. In most democratic countries, their legal protections are strictly limited to their official duties.

 * Traffic and Common Laws: If a politician runs a red light, gets a DUI, or is caught shoplifting, they are legally liable just like any other citizen. Their "parliamentary immunity" typically only protects them from being arrested on their way to or from a legislative session to prevent political opponents from blocking their vote.

 * The "Resource Gap": When it seems like they "get away with it," it is often due to access to high-priced legal counsel or political influence rather than a legal exemption. They can afford the lawyers needed to challenge evidence or negotiate lesser charges in ways the average person cannot.

2. Failure to Provide Services (The "Governance" Problem)

Failing to ensure benefits are paid or services are provided is almost never treated as a "crime." Instead, it is classified as a policy failure or administrative negligence.

 * Sovereign Immunity: You generally cannot sue an individual politician for a bad law or a slow bureaucracy. Courts distinguish between "core policy decisions" (which are protected) and "operational errors" (which might be grounds for a lawsuit).

 * Job Performance vs. Criminality: If a politician mismanages a budget, it isn't a crime; it's considered being "bad at the job." The legal remedy is not a trial, but an election. Voters are expected to "fire" them by voting them out.

 * When it does become a crime: It only becomes a criminal matter if there is proof of corruption (taking bribes to withhold funds) or criminal negligence (if their specific, direct actions caused a known, preventable death).

Comparison: Why the Outcomes Differ

| Scenario | Is it a Crime? | Typical Outcome |

|---|---|---|

| Running a Red Light | Yes (Infraction) | Fine/Points on license |

| Theft or Assault | Yes (Felony/Misdemeanor) | Prosecution, prison, or resignation |

| Mismanaging Public Funds | No (Policy Failure) | Political scandal, loss of election |

| Bribery or Embezzlement | Yes (Corruption) | Criminal investigation and potential jail |

The Reality Check

The reason many feel politicians get away with "crimes" is that the most harmful things they do—like cutting social programs or failing to fix infrastructure—are legal exercises of power. They aren't breaking the law; they are changing or poorly executing it.

////

In Canada, the "Criminal Code" does have specific sections that address your point. While a politician is rarely jailed for "bad policy," they can be prosecuted if their actions cross the line into criminal negligence or breach of trust.

If a politician or public official fails to act and that failure results in death, the legal system looks at two main sections of the Criminal Code:

1. Criminal Negligence Causing Death (Section 220)

Under Section 219, a person is criminally negligent if they omit to do something that is their legal duty to do, and in doing so, show a "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others."

 * The "Duty" Requirement: The prosecutor must prove the politician had a specific legal duty to act (not just a moral or political one).

 * The Consequence: If that negligence causes death, the maximum penalty under Section 220 is life imprisonment.

 * Real-world challenge: It is very difficult to prove that a politician's specific decision (like cutting a budget) was the direct cause of a death, rather than a series of administrative errors by lower-level staff.

2. Breach of Trust by Public Officer (Section 122)

This is one of the most powerful tools for holding officials accountable. It states that any official who commits a "breach of trust" in connection with the duties of their office is guilty of an indictable offense.

 * What it covers: This applies when an official uses their power for a purpose other than the public good—such as being "oppressive" or acting with "dishonest intent."

 * The Link to Death: While Section 122 itself is about the act of betraying trust, if that betrayal leads to a fatal lack of services, it can be used as the foundation for more serious homicide charges (like Manslaughter).

3. The "Westray Law" (Section 217.1)

Originally designed for workplace safety after a mining disaster, this section of the Criminal Code creates a legal duty for anyone who "undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work" to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm.

 * This has been used to target government agencies and their leaders when they fail to enforce safety laws that they were legally required to uphold.

Why don't we see more politicians in handcuffs?

The law provides a "shield" called Legislative Immunity. In most democracies, you cannot prosecute a politician for:

 * How they vote: Even if a "No" vote on a healthcare bill leads to deaths, the act of voting is protected so politicians can't be sued for their opinions.

 * Discretionary Decisions: If a politician has $1 million and chooses to spend it on a road instead of a hospital, and someone dies at the hospital, the court usually says that was a "political choice" they were elected to make, not a crime. Yet, there are certain choices that they cannot make. They must ensure all services and benefits are paid equally.  There is no secret benefit. There is no secret provision of benefits. In Canada when these problems arise in a municipality such as Peel or Toronto, the majority of the victims are White. 

The "Red Light" vs.  "The Policy":

 * Red Light: A clear, individual violation of a specific law. They can and do get charged for this.

 * Service Failure: A complex web of decisions involving hundreds of people.  The law usually blames "the system" or "the department" rather than the individual politician, unless you can find a "smoking gun" where they intentionally broke a law or ignored a direct, life-threatening danger. We have a circumstance that involves direct, life threatening danger when benefits are not paid.  It looks bad.