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.
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.
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?
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.
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.