Would you let a pedophile who served his time babysit your children?
This appears as a perfect false equivalence imo. Would you also let someone who was convicted of poisoning people serve you fast food?
Here's some [0] stats about repeat offeders
However; a robber can serve as a jurist? I don't understand your logic; if it was you who were on trial, wouldn't you hope that the jury of your peers had a higher degree of ethics than a gal who robbed a bank? I know I would.
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.
Last I went there, it was filled with teenagers, typical middle school and high school from the area. Further away from the city center, the bigger macdonalds have playing area and attractions for children, to cater to young families with kids.
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.
Is USA so full of paedophiles that all felons are paedophiles? Or why are you trying to establish this equivalence?
Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...