[crabbone]

> Why should we humanise and care about someone who was a terrible

But... the parable of the prodigal son? The whole point it makes is that we should be happy when the lost person is found. It specifically tries to talk us out of transactional relationships where we would somewhat instinctively assume that we should treat others proportionately well, compared to how well they treated us. And the point it's trying to make is that human dignity isn't something that can be measured or compared, it just is. And everyone has it, and should be treat as such.

----

The article makes it sound though as if Holmes is far from seeking absolution. So, maybe, the concept doesn't apply to her in particular. But, the answer still stands to the more general question.

[jbreckmckye]

I think the point is, we should restore the dignity of people she harmed, before we worry overmuch about restoring hers.

[crabbone]

It seems to be rare that we get to choose whose dignity we should prioritize. The common answer to questions like this: we should choose both. Both are important.

Also, it looks like Holmes is being already punished for what she's done. So, no point of adding more on top. The frustrating aspect is that, at least according to the article, is that she still doesn't acknowledge her guilt. But, I don't think we have it in the criminal law to punish people second time if they disagree with the first punishment. It's upsetting that someone does that, but it's not a crime.

[dijit]

If you violate trust, then you lose that trust and become less trustworthy than someone who has not yet been trusted at all.

This point should be clear to anyone. Holmes' PR team is essentially trying to get us to trust her again, more-so than she deserves for violating that trust in the first place.

It's not about stealing some rich men's money, though that is certainly reprehensible, it's about the actual abuse she presided over for her own glory, fame and fortune.

She is an example of a narcissist gaining power and she should be a lesson to those who would attempt the same.

After her time is served, she can go liver her life however she wants. She does not deserve to be trusted again.

[crabbone]

I believe the parable makes sure that we see the prodigal son as a very bad person. They didn't have VCs and creepy CEOs back in the days when it was written, so we'd have to extrapolate from what they knew unto the present, but I'm convinced that the author wanted us to think that until the prodigal son returned to his father he was beyond redemption.

So, it's not an attempt to deny that Holmes has done evil things. And, in fact, from the article it looks like she's unrepentant... but, my answer was literally to the question as asked. Also, admittedly, you don't have to subscribe to the Christian moral codex, and may reject the notion of every human having dignity as their inalienable right. But that would require a sophisticated and substantial argument.