In what sense? Do you believe past behavior is not causally linked with present behavior?
Now, as for causality, the more social and economic opportunities you withhold from ex-felons - never allowing them to vote, continually expanding the scope declaration requirements, etc. - the more attractive an option recidivism into criminal activity becomes, in proportion to the degree to which you discount their likely future contribution to society. Put another way, if there's no benefits on offer for going and staying on the straight-and-narrow, then why bother?
The belief you're expressing is known as the 'fundamental attribution error' - a tendency to overestimate the explanatory power of inherent characteristics and discount the role of circumstances. This is no wiser than taking the view that everyone is fundamentally good and that they're mindlessly conditioned by social factors.
As far as I'm aware, there's not any conclusive data to show that rehabilitative approaches are much better for recidivism. I'm in favor of the state doing whatever it can to make a more peaceful society. But that does not extend to assuming in my personal life that treating felons as if they were not makes them equally safe to people not already known to have committed serious crimes.
This sort of thinking has historically led to a lot of problems. It is also trivially false. For example, the United States would be a perfectly peaceful place if all Americans were dead. Would you implement such a solution?
Assuming a society must consist of humans, a peaceful society depends on the existence of a society and thus the existence of humans, so you can't just kill everyone.
Ah, downvotes for supplying actual research, gotta love it.
And if you would, good on ya. You can be the one to give everyone second chances.
And I think that the inverse is what creates the whole US mess with huge incarceration rates and a doomed black population...