No, only until it's likely that he won't continue committing crimes.
It's a balance between his right to freedom and the rights of everyone else to not be made victim of his crimes. I think after a certain number of crimes, it's appropriate to weigh the latter over the former.
Edit: And I think the threshold should be less than ten violent crimes
It is a gross abuse of the state to hold a person past their sentence. The whole point of criminal law is presumption of innocence. If that wasn't the case you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the state that you didn't commit the crime they're charging you with. This is exactly what is happening here.
He’s not innocent. He is a repeat offender. And he will almost certainly victimize another innocent person. This isn’t about “beyond a reasonable doubt” - we are well past that. It’s about sentencing based on historical record, to keep the public safe. Think of it as being similar to a sentence that is longer but with the possibility of early release. This just has a default of earlier release, if there is evidence that there wouldn’t be danger to others.
He is not innocent for the crime he committed (encroaching on someone else's entitles, and freedoms), how-ever you cannot (assume) or induct that he will commit a crime which you have no evidence that a crime has been committed (presumption of innocence). Yes the offender has history of repeated offences but those offense would be weighed accordingly if he offended again for another crime and would be sentence accordingly.
It's a balance between his right to freedom and the rights of everyone else to not be made victim of his crimes. I think after a certain number of crimes, it's appropriate to weigh the latter over the former.
Edit: And I think the threshold should be less than ten violent crimes