I'd hate to be a bother if anyone has asked this before, but, regarding your redemption post - shouldn't people who have traumatized others permanently (e.g. rapists, pedophiles, etc.) be exempt from this concept? After all their actions, even with their best intentions, can't change the fact someone else has been traumatized by them (not to mention their value system which led them to committing these acts in the first place).
On the contrary, I’d argue that it’s especially important for them. Read the post: “[Redemption is] making the choice to change the way you live your life, to be better, to do good things instead of bad things and try to make up for the bad things.” If their past actions have been particularly heinous, it’s that much more important that they change, stop doing those things, and live better lives.
You’re right, their actions now can’t change that they already traumatized someone, because nothing can change the past. Killing the wrongdoer won’t change that. Torturing them won’t change that. Giving them an ice cream sundae won’t change that. Because that is how time and causality work. What we can change and affect is the future. If a rapist decides to stop raping people and become a better person, that’s a good thing for everyone. That is the best possible outcome, because it results in fewer people being raped.
I’m not saying that you, personally, have to give a sex offender a hug or let back into your life anyone who’s harmed you or feel any particular way about any particular person. You don’t. But you do need to refrain from standing in the way of positive change. If you (general you, not necessarily anon you) run around telling people that it’s impossible for rapists (or whatever flavor of wrongdoer that you personally hate most) to change or, worse, that they don’t deserve to change, then what happens if people believe you? If you convince someone who hurts people that it’s impossible for them to stop hurting people, you take away their motivation to try. You also take away potential sources of help with such a change. You’re basically campaigning for them to continue hurting people. Which, if this needs to be spelled out, results in more people getting hurt. Which is bad.
We could quibble all day over semantics, whether this concept should be called redemption or atonement or something else. But that’s really not the point. The post you’re referring to is about the human capacity to change for the better—change actions and value systems—and that’s even more important, not less, the worse the things are that someone has done. Because that just means the stakes are higher when it comes to what they’ll do in the future.
There’s also, of course, a discussion to be had about if and how and by whom this process can be facilitated. There’s a discussion to be had about how to protect people from individuals who hurt others and aren’t currently inclined to stop. There are plenty more discussions, and they’re important. But we need to start from the knowledge that if a “bad” person decides to do better, decides to help people instead of hurt them, that’s a win for everyone.