Should presidents be exempt from trials while in office?

Gina (No)

Although the US President holds the highest seat of power in the country, they are still fallible human beings who need to be held accountable for their actions—especially those alleged to be illegal. Power has long been associated with corruption. The nation can minimize the risk of corruption by holding presidents—past and present—accountable.

The only prerequisites for a presidential candidate are that they must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. These attributes make them no different than any other human being with the same qualities. The president should be treated like any other citizen, keeping with equality and justice. Without trials, there is a risk of the president abusing their powers. The leader of our country could be committing unthinkable crimes throughout their entire term. With the exemption of trial, a president could feasibly abuse a path of destruction that would not stop until the end of their presidency.

The President of the United States is someone the American people look up to and respect. They have the influence and power to influence the nation, including the youth of America—our future leaders. The president must be considered trustworthy and, therefore, able to be held responsible for any wrongdoing. Also, the US is a country dedicated to equality, so exempting a president potentially sends a contradictory message to the rest of the nation.  

Although a US president should have some benefits, given the stress of the position, they should align with America's value system of liberty and justice for all. Presidential exemption from trial negates those values. 

James (Yes)

Exempting US presidents from trials while in office has been a topic of debate, with proponents highlighting several compelling reasons for this practice. One significant rationale is the need for an undivided focus on governance. By providing immunity from legal proceedings, presidents are able to prioritize their duty of steering the nation without the constant disruptions and distractions that trials could entail. Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers plays a pivotal role in this context. Granting immunity to sitting presidents helps maintain the delicate balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It prevents the judiciary from unduly interfering with the presidency's functioning, thus safeguarding each branch's independence and effectiveness. National security concerns also come into play. Trials during a president's tenure could expose sensitive national security information and decision-making processes to the public. The short-term nature of a presidency is another factor to consider. With limited terms in office, presidents must be able to fulfill their mandates promptly and effectively. 

Nevertheless, once a president's term concludes, they are not immune from prosecution. This post-presidency accountability ensures that any alleged wrongdoings can still be addressed through the legal process, which means it's possible to strike a balance between holding leaders accountable and preserving stability during their time in office. Likewise, in-term prosecution could potentially weaponize the legal system to intentionally influence the president, exploiting the vast scope of presidential involvement to find areas of contention. Ultimately, the debate over exempting US presidents from trials while in office continues as the nation seeks the delicate equilibrium between effective governance, accountability, and the integrity of its legal processes.