First of all, the numbers don't show that they're extremely unlikely to commit a crime, they at best show that they're 22% likely to be re-arrested within 5 years for a violent crime. Not all crimes are solved, and not all crimes are even reported, especially in the sorts of places these people likely live, and five years is not much of a window. So the actual number is higher, maybe a lot higher. And if the last few years of wuhan virus hysteria has taught me anything, it's that even a <1% chance of a negative outcome is apparently worth shutting down society over. But now you're telling me 22% (and actually more) is "extremely unlikely" and not worth worrying about?

Second, ask the average person this: "We have ten murderers. If we let them free, between 2 and 3, at least, other innocent people will be violently attacked within five years, and the number goes up from there. Is it worth letting these murderers free?" and they will not say yes.

First of all, the numbers don't show that they're extremely unlikely to commit a crime, they at best show that they're 22% likely to be re-arrested within 5 years. Not all crimes are solved, and not all crimes are even reported, especially in the sorts of places these people likely live, and five years is not much of a window. So the actual number is higher, maybe a lot higher. And if the last few years of wuhan virus hysteria has taught me anything, it's that even a <1% chance of a negative outcome is apparently worth shutting down society over. But now you're telling me 22% (and actually more) is "extremely unlikely" and not worth worrying about?

Second, ask the average person this: "We have ten murderers. If we let them free, between 2 and 3, at least, other innocent people will be violently attacked within five years, and the number goes up from there. Is it worth letting these murderers free?" and they will not say yes.