Is it ethical to restrict rights of certain indivduals for the protection of society?

That's a can o' worms, isn't it? Restriction of rights is sometimes necessary to certain individuals depending on the reason for the restriction. For example, the freedom to travel is restricted for a prison inmate in order to maintain public safety. A judge may restrict an alcoholic's right to drink in order to protect the alcoholic from himself. Persons entering a certain area such as an airport may be restricted from the right to bear arms.

In certain times, restrictions enter a grey area of ethics. Internment of American citizens of Japanese descent by our government was considered a necessary precaution at the time, though most people now consider that decision as unjust. Conversely, many Americans think that racial profiling should now be legal against Americans of Arabic descent. Currently, the Geneva Convention is being violated in the

Certain legal restrictions are in question concerning offenders who are considered less dangerous than others. Sex offenders are required to register publicly for life, while those who commit murder are not. In some states, drivers who are convicted of DUI are required to have a special license plate, publicly proclaiming their offense and subjecting their cars to arbitrary police stops. Many consider these restrictions to be an overzealous "scarlet letter" punishment that oversteps legal boundaries, adding a lifetime sentence to a sentence already paid.

The ethical question must be weighed as such: Is the restriction of one person's right worth the perceived protection to the overall society?

Sorry to have to answer your question with a question, but with so many variables, it is impossible to definitively answer it.