It predictably inflicts damage statistically, however—and (and this is the key part!) it prevents you from affecting that statistical distribution according to your own judgment.
It would be as if, for example, you weren’t allowed to drive carefully (or to not drive). Driving is dangerous, right? It’s not guaranteed to harm you, but there’s a certain chance that it will. But we accept this—why? Because you have the option of driving carefully, obeying the rules of the road, not driving when you’re tired or inebriated or when it’s snowing, etc.; indeed, you have the option of not driving at all. But if you were forced to drive, no matter the circumstances, this would indeed constitute, in a quite relevant sense, “inflicting damage”.
“But when you’re on the receiving end of such “statistical” ostracism from everyone you meet, it feels quite different.”
Do the feelings of the shop owners count?
In fact we already know how this works today, as many employers do not hire criminals and many landlords will not rent to them. Others do, money is money. The system works, criminals don’t face ostracism from everyone, they have one another and many non-criminals who are willing to associate with them. (Many criminals are even willing to almost implement your suggestion with face tats.) It provides deterrence of crime and, more importantly, preserves the liberty of the non-criminal population.
Because the smaller measure should (on my hypothesis) be enough to prevent crime, and inflicting more damage than necessary for that is evil.
IMO forcing law abiding citizens to associate with criminals is inflicting damage on them without a necessary justification.
No. Committing a crime inflicts damage. But interacting with a person who committed a crime in the past doesn’t inflict any damage on you.
It predictably inflicts damage statistically, however—and (and this is the key part!) it prevents you from affecting that statistical distribution according to your own judgment.
It would be as if, for example, you weren’t allowed to drive carefully (or to not drive). Driving is dangerous, right? It’s not guaranteed to harm you, but there’s a certain chance that it will. But we accept this—why? Because you have the option of driving carefully, obeying the rules of the road, not driving when you’re tired or inebriated or when it’s snowing, etc.; indeed, you have the option of not driving at all. But if you were forced to drive, no matter the circumstances, this would indeed constitute, in a quite relevant sense, “inflicting damage”.
“But when you’re on the receiving end of such “statistical” ostracism from everyone you meet, it feels quite different.”
Do the feelings of the shop owners count?
In fact we already know how this works today, as many employers do not hire criminals and many landlords will not rent to them. Others do, money is money. The system works, criminals don’t face ostracism from everyone, they have one another and many non-criminals who are willing to associate with them. (Many criminals are even willing to almost implement your suggestion with face tats.) It provides deterrence of crime and, more importantly, preserves the liberty of the non-criminal population.