[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Thing is, though, our society requires only that criminals do their time - and Liddy did his.
[/quote]
Sure, but that’s nothing to do with redemption.
If you view using illegal hallucinogins as a moral failing, then yes. Personally, I don’t share that view, so Leary didn’t have any need for redemption in the first place.
I’m not sure how Liddy touring with Leary reflects one way or the other on his guilt for the crimes he committed during the Nixon administration. What’s the connection there?
Wait, where’d forgiveness come from? We were talking about redemption. I’m pretty sure those are two different concepts.
I think we might be using the idea of redemption in two different ways. I suspect you’re saying that, while he hasn’t atoned from his actions under Nixon, he’s done enough other, non-related stuff that partially counterbalances those crimes, right? I’m saying that, to be redeemed for what he did in the '70s, he has to do something to specifically rectify what he did in the '70s. Any and all other good acts he’s done do not redeem him for those crimes, not while he’s still refusing to admit that he did anything wrong. One might decide that, on balance, he’s done more good than harm, and judge him as a person on that basis, but on the subject of the Watergate break-ins and related criminal activity, he stands as unrepentedly guilty as the day he was sent to prison.
Going in a slightly different direction, I’m also not sure what he’s done that partially redeems him in any sense. Appearing on Fear Factor or touring with Tim Leary are morally neutral. They don’t make him a better person, nor do they make him a worse person. Even if we disagree over the necessity of contrition in the process of redemption, I think we can at least agree that he has to do something positive to be considered even partially redeemed. What has he done since he got out of prison that’s a moral positive?
True enough, but you know what the Chinese say about living in interesting times.
