They can learn: When is state pardon morally and legally justified?
How law can be restorative, not retributive?
That law should not be based on revenge, but on substantial justice and social stability.
This creates space for the study of political hermeneutics, namely who has the right to interpret "right and wrong" within the dynamics of power.
Are there other positive values from the democratic aspect?
Of course. This case serves as a kind of "laboratory for democracy," where we can test whether or not:
Other state institutions (the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and civil society) function as a counterweight.
That the media and civil society are able to distinguish between image-building and legal substance.
The public learns that even political forgiveness must be ethically accounted for.
So how do we respond maturely?
By being critical, not over-reacting. We need to hear various perspectives, but most importantly, as intellectuals, we must maintain our distance from political fanaticism and encourage the maturation of the law, power, and public awareness.