Hmmmm … traditionally, an act is pardonable to the degree that its description and defense implies the person can be held responsible for it. If not, because they are either unaware or ignorant, then they are unpardonable.

For instance, this is why the insanity defense exists since when anyone claims to be ignorant of their actions, unaware, or “scared out of their wits”, they are not so much pardoned by the law (since nobody can be ignorant of the law), but viewed as sick and/or mentally ill. In short, someone can only be pardoned if it is assumed they knew what they were doing in the first place. If not, if they are beasts, children, or madmen, they will not be pardoned, but more or less disciplined, more or less pathologized.

Since the insanity defense and 'crimes of passion' are rarely evoked these days, someone like Cooper may still act ‘as if’ she were mad by simply speaking irresponsibly, slamming her dog around, and citing attenuating circumstances. No doubt, in shirking any responsibility for her actions beyond an appeal to ignorance (she was scared), she will be found twice as guilty, not by the courts, but by the public, her job, her conscience, etc. It is this rebound effect that confirms her actions are unpardonable.

This is because the fundamental ethical question is never who was harmed or how much were they harmed, but WHY they were harmed in the first place. Any person - or law - that does not adequately address the cause of an action - and only seeks to quantify it as in your subway example - is unable to assume responsibility for or sanction it.

Unfortunately, if there is no attempt to assume responsibility for her actions beyond a plea of ignorance, it will not matter if you or anyone else accept Cooper's apologies.

Just a few grains of salt,

Scully