[buro9]

In the case cited in the article, of a child who as a pre-teenager ended up on a sexual register, does it make sense?

Would it make sense if a homeless child had been caught shoplifting for food in their teenage years and 30 years later had turned their life around and become a professional... does it still make sense?

And of refugees, does it make sense to offer foreign governments a mechanism to prevent emigration simply by arresting those who are likely to leave?

The lack of rehabilitation as a fundamental concept that underpins the treatment of people, is a life sentence to those people.

[tehlike]

I totally agree with you, but my point is, why would US?

[buro9]

To deprive a foreign power of influence in the decision making process.

To enshrine in the process one of the myths of the American Dream in the form of potential for social mobility.

To judge based on the virtues of the individual, rather than to judge based on the legal domain from which the individual originates (you should know that different countries have different standards, is the USA an enforcer of every standard?).

Those are a few that spring to mind.

[tehlike]

This is where my "utilitarian" comment comes in, for the lack of better word. There are thousands if not millions of people willing to emigrate, with many decorated ones.

I see this similar to "tech interviews" where an individual is asked for arbitrary algorithm questions (that are deemed hard). The idea is to eliminate false positives, even if it comes at the expense of false negatives.

I disagree with the current US view on "criminal history", for the reasons you say, it also makes me scared because of false convictions, for example. I also don't trust the legal system of another country, and i agree each case to its own. something that's illegal in a country could be considered a human right / freedom in the US. But i think i see the point.