> and so in the first you get complaints the sentencing is too harsh, and in this one you get complaints that he shouldn't have been pardoned.

You can also hold both positions simultaneously without contradiction. That is to say that you can think that his sentence was too harsh while at the same time being of the opinion that what he did was a crime (and should be a crime) and that he should remain convicted and un-pardoned, just with a different sentence than the one he was given.