Though I see that point, I think there's a counterpoint which is, "We can choose to release felons at the earliest moment when they no longer represent a serious threat to a peaceable society" but that by releasing them at that earlier moment, we give them many freedoms but don't trust them with certain things we trust other citizens with (gun ownership, voting, jury duty, working with children, commercial trucking/aviation, serving as a military officer, whatever...)

I can imagine many cases where I'd be comfortable with someone being out of prison but not with owning a gun after let's say N years for an armed robbery conviction. In fact, I might not be comfortable with them legally owning a gun ever again. If we demand that the system be totally stateless and that we not release a prisoner until we're comfortable giving them all the possible rights, it seems sensible to argue the penalty for armed robbery should be life (which is, of course, ridiculous).

> You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new.

The consequences for being found guilty of a crime are more nuanced than this suggests, although not so much in the US which is very focused on vengeance.

Let's take an example a sentencing example I sat in on:

The man had forged paperwork purportedly showing he'd paid a bunch of money for supplies, because he had already written a fraudulent claim for a large tax refund for his business, and the tax office wrote back asking for evidence of this expenditure. That was his last chance to say "Oops, that was er... a mistake" and maybe get a fine, once he decided "I'll just forge the paperwork" he was doomed to go to prison.

Item 1 on the court's agenda was to tell Companies House that the guilty man must not direct any companies. Never (unless a successful application is made to reverse this, which is unlikely) can this man serve as director or secretary of any type of company again. In his family business this means a son will now run the company - why? Because the freedom to direct a company is not essential and we evidently can't trust this guy to do so because he purposefully lied to the tax authorities. He doesn't need to "earn" that back, let somebody trustworthy do it instead.

The guy also got some months of prison time, after the court had reassured itself that this would not leave any dependants destitute -- no point sending one guy to prison only to have his kids turn to crime to get food right? But the fervent hope of the court is that this results in him being _reformed_ and no longer breaking the law.

We can also disqualify people who commit electoral fraud from participating in elections. Oh two government employees conspired to stuff a ballot for a $500 pay off? They're not just going to prison for a little while, they will also have a lifetime ban on standing as candidate in any election and from participating in any way, including as an ordinary voter. No more democracy for you motherfucker.

As to "eternal" punishment, in countries that don't have the Death Penalty (all of Europe for example) what else should we do with unrepentant murderers? Anders Breivik for example still expresses the belief that murdering a bunch of young volunteers was the right thing to do. We obviously can't be like "OK Anders, you've served your time, don't kill anybody else" because that's exactly what he'll do. So he will most likely spend the rest of his life in a cell - periodically psychologists will assess him, say nope he's still dangerous, and he'll stay behind bars.

We learn from our mistakes.

If the consequences are too great, it makes people not want to make mistakes, therefore getting stuck.

If consequences are too small, people do not learn to think about "what could go wrong", and do stupid things over and over again.

In this day and age where everything gets recorded and shared, I tend to be more cautious.

However the smaller amount of mistakes gets shared to more people to learn from, therefore maybe we are learning faster this way?

False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food restaurant since they’ve served their debt to society.

No, whether they've ever served time or not is irrelevant in this case.

It's a false equivalence, because they're not suitable for the role in the first place.

A better question is, would I let a pedophile who served their time work at McDonald's? And the answer is, of course. They need a job just like everyone else.

I wouldn’t let a pedophile babysit my children (and I actually do know people who served time for pedophile-related crimes). But the question is “would you let a pedophile do any job?” I don’t see why I should object to a pedophile working as an accountant, stock broker, software tester, or juror.

He has the freedom to apply to any jobs and employers have the freedom to reject him.

This is a complete strawman, the argument is that legal rights of this person is fully restored in the eye of the government, potential employers can always turn people down for almost any reason.

> Would you let a pedophile who served his time babysit your children?

Is USA so full of paedophiles that all felons are paedophiles? Or why are you trying to establish this equivalence?

We already solve this problem with sex offender registries. There's no reason to call all felons pedophiles just to execute your agenda.

That is not the question at hand though...