The short answer: no, the simple fact that he's letting himself be victimized someplace would not redeem him in my eyes.
Let's think of it this way: say if you were one of Stephen's victims. He smashes your kid's school project while he's waiting for the bus, leaves dead animals and cat feces on your doorstep for your pregnant wife to find knowing you'd have to clean it up so she doesn't put her unborn child at risk, spills your garbage can so its contents blow all over the neighborhood, and has the audacity to tell you to your face that he did all those things, while he laughs. Your neighbors enact mob justice on him, and then he fucks off to someplace else.
Even if you knew he was letting himself be victimized somewhere else- like if he was posting pictures of himself being humiliated on social media or deliberately spent a lot of time on a project just so he could pay someone to smash it to pieces and write about how that felt -would that make better anything that he's done to you and your family? You might feel a twinge of sadistic glee from seeing him post a new picture or another writeup about how it feels to have something stolen from him before his eyes, but how do you know he feels remorse for what he did to you? Or anybody else, for that matter?
Redemption isn't just eye-for-an-eye punishments. The way you describe this, Stephen might as well just be mindlessly self-flagellating out of cowardice, thinking that remedies what he did to you and your neighbors just so long as he doesn't have to face you guys again or actually think about what he's done. Understanding what he did is the big thing here- if he doesn't internalize that what's happening to him is something he did to someone else, the whole effort is pointless. Redemption is about understanding that you made mistakes and trying to make them better, and all he seems to be doing is letting other people perpetuate them in his stead. You, your family, and your neighbors are still bitter.
Now, what would make him actually redeem himself would be if he came back home- or didn't leave at all -gave every single person he hurt a genuine apology, and resolved to make life better for all of his past victims.
"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."
My name's Ben.
I'm surprised you said this. Actually, I completely agree. If I was watching Stephen self-flagellate, I would be completely indifferent, though in my case it's because I pretty thoroughly reject the "balancing the cosmic scales" model of justice.
I thought I was relatively alone in this position, though.
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.
In my view, redemption is less about overall cosmic balance and more about not leaving bad blood.
I'm saying this as someone who has had to put up with some serious assholes in high school. The year after I graduated, I got a chuckle or two out of finding out that my former tormentors were having trouble adjusting at college without their buddies, making friends overall, keeping up with the coursework, or generally having issues with being in a place where the faculty wasn't pulling strings for them or kissing their asses all the time, but that can only go so far. I don't give two shits about what those people are doing now as long as I don't have to look at them anymore.
Now, wouldn't it have been better for us all if they'd just swallowed their pride and apologized? There's a lot of arbitrary rules of etiquette, but this isn't one of them. It's not naive or stupid to want an apology, or some respect.
And regarding the self-flagellation, there's a distinct possibility that it might instead be seen (whether by people in-story or by readers) as an attempt at guilt-tripping or attention-seeking, a la "Look at what you've made me do to myself", "If you don't help me you're as bad as I used to be", etc.
edited 7th Nov '16 5:55:00 AM by CrystalGlacia
"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."
It's a bird.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
You're not alone. Look up retributive justice
versus it's alternatives. I can't say that I'd be indifferent though. It would be a conflict between my emotional need for revenge and my opinion that all suffering is bad.
My name's Ben.
Thanks, I was actually thinking of retributive justice when I wrote that. 
Okay, so let me change the scenario a little bit.
Stephen hasn't actually done much wrong but he's hardly done anything right, either. He is, in other words, a bit selfish, a bit of a loser, a bit lazy. One day he decides to set out into the wilds where he is mistreated by bandits, pirates and corrupt lawmen. He is crippled by the various ass kickings. He returns to the village where the elders, people who'd previously ignored him as an inconsequential lightweight, know see he's been subject to great suffering and come to visit. The villagers also appreciate the depth Stephen's victimization has given him. Stephen ascends to a position of respect and deference within the town.
Do you buy this?
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.
God yes. Thats the fantasy of everyone who has ever been the victim of systematic bullying and harrassment. If it isnt true to life, it ought to be.
Treat it as a kind of " modern day fable" and it works, I think.
My name's Ben.
Interesting.
So does being victimized prepare people for more responsibility or are you thinking that Stephen grows and earns deference in a different way?
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.
Elementalist
It's not necessarily that being victimised leaves anyone stronger or better prepared by default, I think, but rather that people generally expect those who went through hardships with neither lashing out at those around them nor breaking mentally to pieces to be resilient enough not to bend under themselves when given power.
So I think if people respect him more for whatever happened during his hardships, it's for the way he'd acted: his choices, the traits he'd shown, that kind of stuff.
edited 11th Nov '16 12:47:41 PM by Kazeto
What does "being victimized" or "victimization" even mean?
Elementalist
Considering the context, in this thread I presume it means facing constant or nigh-constant hardships, ones that could be avoided by acting badly, for a significant amount of time.
My name's Ben.
In the context of the book I'm writing, Stephen goes to places he knows are dangerous and takes no steps to protect himself.
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.
Elementalist
That's straight-out being a moron, then, you know. And it has nothing to do with being a victim of any kind nor in any context.
My name's Ben.
^ I was inspired by this.
edited 14th Nov '16 8:13:47 PM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.
Elementalist
I do not see the link between that and what you are writing. One was an ... unfortunate incident that happened because someone was an evil person with no fault on the victim, and the other is (as far as you seem to be planning) someone being in a bad situation because of lack of preparation when it would have been wise to prepare any.
The very fact that you appear to see some kind of link there is honestly a bit disturbing. So either you've left out a lot of (important) context to what you are writing, or you haven't and there's something out of place here.
My name's Ben.
Stephen goes to dangerous places without protecting himself. If I specified that he goes to parties and black out drinks, does that change anything?
I never said that makes him stupid ... you did.
edited 15th Nov '16 9:12:15 PM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.
Laugh and grow dank!
But your example implied you think these situations are similar in all the same relevant characteristics.
yey
My name's Ben.
It implied I took inspiration for Stephen from the Stanford case, I make no judgment on who was right or wrong.
edited 15th Nov '16 9:14:51 PM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.
Laugh and grow dank!
I never said I thought you think either party was right or wrong. That's not required to think the situations are fundamentally similar.
yey
"Stephen is a bad guy. He takes advantage of the elderly and steals from kids. He likes it when people scream and beg. Every time he hits somebody else, it's a reward, a blessing. His neighbors finally succeed in overcoming Stephen's reign of terror and lock him away. They tell Stephen that's he's scum, a piece of shit. They take his clothes and feed him in a dog bowl. They break him and take away all his self-respect.
One day, the neighbors decide that Stephen is no longer a threat and set him lose. He travels to a far away land and allows himself to be robbed, beaten and disrespected. He lives the life of a victim, recreating for himself all the terrors he inflicted on others. With each instance of victimization Stephen has been redeemed a little bit more."
Does this scenario seem true to you?
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.