Would you let an ostensibly reformed pedophile babysit your kids?
Being pedant here, but pedophiles don't reform: they don't change a physiologically-seated sexual preference because of punishment or conditioning, though they might learn to repress it (or sublime it, the way Lewis Carrol is often hypothesized to have done). Child molesters
, on the other hand, may or may not reform, though, like all criminals, usually the only way of proving it is to never recidivate until death ("Oh. Well, I guess that really had
reformed.") While there is overlap between the two categories, not all pedophiles act on their pedophilia, and not all child molesters prefer children. At least, the Catholic church has claimed that most of their sex offenders were straight, and would prefer adult women: male children were just the most available (and vulnerable) targets.
12 people decided to lock them away for a year or more
I don't know about your jurisdiction but AFAIK juries only decide if the charged party is guilty or innocent, it's the judge that decides of what happens next.
As for the other examples you cited, what does that have to do with voting, and why would those people even try to keep practicing those professions, rather than something unrelated? Also, are you aware of the term "golden parachute"? Fiscal criminals and irresponsible directors can get away with a lot if they know the right people and/or the right secrets.
Someone has posed a very good question here: why should one be allowed to vote on a coin toss, rather than, upon expressing that stance, be classified as legally insane? Just asking.
In fact, why do we have to vote for people
? That only turns elections into a popularity contest. Shouldn't we vote for policies and laws and guidelines instead, and have a technocratic government tasked with carrying them out, under pain of prison were they to fail to follow the people's will? Isn't it desirable to simply get rid of parties? I know some of the Founding Fathers of the USA wanted to: what were their reasons?
Voting at age thriteen seems like a swell idea. It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of having the right to have a modicum of power over one's fate. Obligatory voting, with the right to vote blank, seems like a fine idea too, with a minimum participation rate: if enough people feel that none of the votees are fit to govern, then none of them should
: the government should be broken down, a state of urgency declared, and major reforms undertaken. That a group should govern over a larger group of which only a small fraction (like, say, 17 percent if participation is very low) actively wanted them to, seems absurd to me. Felons should have the right to vote, same as anyone else: there's the worry that some candidates would court that specific demographic with clientelist offers, but since those offers would presumably consist of reducing that contingent, the point is moot. Also, the worry itself will encourage less felon manufacturing: rather than imprison someone to silence them, you will avoid doing so so as not to reinforce that group's numbers, that is, its power.
Note: the usual disclaimer: