Should celebrity malcontents be given a second chance? Popular culture is quick to both forgive indiscretions and bury unsavory elements. Every man, it seems, is entitled to the opportunity to redeem himself; by this token, it seems imprudent and illogical to debate this question from a specific celebrity standpoint. Treat others as you would have them treat you; judge others as you would wish them to judge in return.
The underlying issue behind this topic is that it seems to denote a favored status to the individuals who entertain our society. To an extent, this is inevitable. Once a person becomes famous to the point where their every action is reported, the transparency of every facet of his life forces an unnatural expectation of perfection upon the celebrity's shoulders. It is important, when dealing with famous personalities, to remember that behind the faade of glitz and glamour lies a mere human being. Fundamentally no different from myself or any other human, it is unreasonable to demand perfection from a celebrity. To err is human; to forgive divine.
Celebrities, when they err, deserve to be given a second chance. The real problem is that most scandalous celebrities receive far more chances than the average human. The status of wealth and exposure cause a large portion of society to forgive repeat transgressions, even when overwhelming evidence points toward the need to punish. Too many celebrities have become morally malnourished, assuming their accolades are a sufficient substitute for acceptable behavior.
If a celebrity commits an honest mistake, then he deserves a second chance as much as any other human being. But for so-called "ne'er-do-well", repeat-offender celebrities, as with any recidivist, they deserve no special treatment. The law is written the same for every citizen, and not even celebrity status can exempt a person from the consequences of his actions.