The stats don't matter, IMHO. It could be 99% of them who re-offend; to segregate and discriminate against them after they have paid for their crime is a strike against the basic human rights of those people.

Previous conviction record is not one of so-called protected characteristics (gender/race/religion/etc), it is completely legal to discriminate based on that.

Basic human rights include a lot of things, but the list of those does not include a right to be trusted despite your prior actions, and it does not include a right to be served in particular location - those are privileges or interpersonal relationships that may be granted or withheld as the others believe is best for them.

> it is completely legal to discriminate based on that.

Unless you're breaking the rehabilitation of offenders law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Ac...

Yes, most jurisdictions have some kind of expiry for criminal record.

However, for good reasons, this doesn't happen automagically at the end of a prison sentence, it requires much more time than that and many thieves (the profession having a high rate of re-offending) spend most of their out-of-prison lives without this expiry/rehabilitation occurring.

No it isn't. If 81% of them are re-arrested (which means much more than 81% commit the crime again), a little inconvenience and suspicion is fully justified.