Because experience is sometimes wrong — and leads to prejudice — experience is evil. We should evaluate each person without bias, and disregarding experience.

The truly virtuous person therefore treats everybody as equal — because to do otherwise is to be prejudiced against some people, or to open that possibilty.

Since prejudice is the worst of all sins, then no real world outcome can affect this policy.

After all, real world outcomes are just another kind of experience, and experience may be misleading.

Since evil people can reform, any specific evil person might have reformed, therefore we ought to treat everybody (evil or good) as if they had reformed.

Because to do otherwise would be to encourage prejudice; and that is the worst thing.

In other words this is a PC moral inversion. Humans cannot be neutral, and if people unilaterally seek to avoid prejudice at any cost as their highest morality, they will unilaterally favour those whom prejudice would naturally disadvantage: such as serial killers or rapists.

Or, at least, they will strive to do this, and will strive to overcome their own natural fears and scruples — which is of course much easier to do if you yourself are not taking the consequences for your decision. In a mass society the bad consequences of reverse-prejudice will almost certainly fall on somebody else: whereas freeing an habitual criminal in a small village would mean a high probability of suffering the consequences personally.

In other words, this is a form of moral parasitism — getting the self-esteem of indulging one’s own reverse prejudices but having the costs borne by others, unknown others.

You’re right about the data, although we have to keep in mind that if you torture the data long enough, with the right statistical tricks, it will confess to anything.