> "if that is allowed discrimination outside certain roles how can those people ever be expected back to society? Ofc, they are going to do more crime if it is their only realistic option for reasonable income."
And you've found the answer to why the American judicial/prison-complex is a revolving door system."Welcome to the Hotel California. You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave!"
On the other hand you have egregious cases where such a measure would completely make sense but is ignored because of larger interests. One of them is how EU public institutions screen all their employees and filter out felons. And then a public institution like the European Central Bank names Christine Lagarde president, just 3 years after she received a criminal conviction of negligence in allowing the misuse of public funds.
A freshly minted criminal can be named president of an institution in more or less the same general area as where she committed her crime. But a someone with a minor drug charge can't take a dev job... Both are a stain on modern society.
If the argument is that serving your time in jail rehabilitates you, then you shouldn't be limited in what roles you can take after you've served your time.
I assume the "certain roles" you are talking about is something like banking with someone with a history of felony fraud. I guess the argument is that maybe prison isn't 100% rehabilitative. But if that's the case, why should I, as a non-banker, hire a felon who, say assaulted a stranger with a baseball bat. Isn't there a similar chance that prison wasn't 100% rehabilitative?
I find it ironic, though, to want to seek shelter in BRK to avoid a too tech heavy SPY, when BRK itself has maintained relevancy only by investing disproportionately in AAPL. It would seem prudent to cut out the BRK middleman and just directly invest in AAPL if one wants to emulate BRK’s success.