I agree with you that, having paid one’s debt to society, rights must be restored.
As to your second paragraph, violent people are going to be let back into society whether their rights are restored or not. Repeat offenders already get enhanced sentences, so I don’t understand your point.
My point is that if the alternative “punishment ends” scenario is adopted, scrapping the present “punishment never ends” scenario, i.e. amounting to a change in present policy, such that those prisoners who have completed their sentences have all their rights restored, then I would also strongly suggest a corresponding change in sentencing guidelines, such that repeat, dangerous, violent criminals receive _much longer_ or permanent sentences - LWOP or death - so that these people are never released, and accordingly never have their rights restored.
I think it would be a disaster to retain the present catch-and-release program and also bestow a full restoration of rights upon release; if rights restoration is to take place, and I think those who are reasonably not future threats deserve this, that sentencing should change correspondingly.
Actually, I support restorative justice over punitive justice - have the convicts make good to the victims rather than serving time for the state or paying monetary fines to the state. If the victims are fully satisfied in this way, on what basis should the state make any additional claims against the perpetrators?
Of course, this is difficult to answer for murderers, as their victims cannot be compensated, but these are the sorts of people I think should be kept away for a long time, unless circumstances are such that it’s clear they killed under special circumstances that aren’t likely to ever happen again.