[sudosysgen]

I don't know, it's more complicated that this. He was a terrorist. Would you give a second chance to a terrorist? It is a bit more complicated than how he wrote it.

Indeed, he was involved in a terrorist attack against a synagogue, as the getaway driver.

[artificial]

There are people in entertainment who were in gangs. Nelson Mandela was also a terrorist who got a second chance. This deeply gets into philosophy and I don't really have a good answer.

[sudosysgen]

Nelson Mandela had questionable means, but no one has a leg to stand on to critique his goal. As for people in gangs, there is a difference between a criminal and a Nazi terrorist.

Let's not defeat by analogy here. He was not a guerilla fighter that assassinated people in order to stop an oppressive regime. He was not a run of the mill criminal.

He was part of an operation to kill Jews, because they were Jews, in an attempt to bring upon genocide and misery. This is not a philosophical question; it is a question of experience. In different places of the world, your hear a very good argument that he's the only kind of criminal that deserves the death sentence, possibly the most heinous type of person imaginable.

[anxman]

I love this trail of thinking though. Like, what if I told you that there are museums named after a violent domestic abuser? Should we judge Picasso for who he was, for his work, or for both?

[artificial]

I think so, the harm comes from judging someone from the past through the lens of the modern day. Maybe there will be a movement to add asterisks to everything? *the painter, not the domestic abuse performance artist.

[lowdose]

Life is complicated especially when people are traumatized. I don't know about his particular case.

Interpret my comment more in general as a plea for the term we should hold people accountable for what is recorded in our digital memory than a plea for forgiveness of terrorist.