"Bottom line: restricting employment opportunites creates recidivism."
BOTTOM line: A system which punishes serious crimes (discounting those that are eventually expungeable under current state systems) with a lifetime mark--a "record"--serves as a deterrent to people. If everyone knows that in time, it will just be "wiped out anyway," where's the disincentive?
Only a generation or two ago, there was an incredible onus on being an unwed mother--and unweds were relatively rare. Over time, this onus has been eroded to the point where, if a girl gets "knocked up" these days, she has made a "lifestyle choice." I am not exaggerating one bit. Many of today's 30- and unders see it that way. What has happened? The number of unwed mothers has grown exponentially.
That is not necessarily a perfectly valid comparison (as no such thing exists), but it's to suggest that, to remove a consequence to a behavior that's bad for the individual and bad for society is to remove a barrier.
As for "restricting employment opportunities"...I am not going to sink to the absurd level I've seen here lately, where people you disagree with are simply declared trolls, disruptors, or told to "go back to DU!", but I see that phrase as Lib-speak. You commit a crime, the nature or fact of which makes me not want you near my enterprise...and I'm restricting your opportunity?
Agree to disagree. Have a good day.