[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.