Steve Mulroy writes, responding to me:

Volokh, Eugene wrote:

	>>Rather, the conviction for the crime gives society certain 
information -- information that the person has done 

something bad, information that he is likely a continuing 
threat (hence the incapacitation justification for 
imprisonment), and information that he is not a trustworthy 
sort of person.  We may for various reasons (justice, mercy, 
a desire to save money) release the person from prison after 
some number of years.  But that doesn't mean that we must 
somehow forget the information we learned about him, and stop 
acting on that information.  We may decide not to let him own 
guns, or vote, or be employed in certain jobs, or whatever 
else.  And metaphors about "paying a debt to society" should, 
I think, be irrelevant to this analysis.<<

               But the fact that the person has served his 
sentence and 
no longer has any probation conditions attached  constitutes a 
considered judgment by the criminal justice system that he is NOT a 
continuing threat--otherwise, incapacitation reasons would justify a 
longer sentence, a longer probation period, etc.

	I don't think that's quite right.  Prison terms are limited not
just by a perception of threat, but also by (1) concerns of mercy or
justice -- we might think someone is still likely a threat, but not be
willing to lock him up indefinitely -- and (2) concerns of cost.  I
suspect people are indeed often released even when they are threats.

	And the legal system takes this view, and not just as to voting.
First, as I've noted before, if we really took the "he's released so
he's not a threat" view, then all felons -- including violent felons --
should immediately regain the right to own guns once they're released.
After all, they aren't threats any more, right?  Second, the tort law of
negligent hiring rests on the sensible proposition that at least people
who are guilty of certain kinds of crimes are threats even after they're
released and finish their probation.  Otherwise, there'd be nothing
negligent about hiring a convicted child molester at a day care center;
after all, he isn't a threat, right?

	Eugene