That the crimes were committed when he was a minor, and that he grew up and channeled his interest into becoming a highly productive member of society (as demonstrated by his work including stopping WannaCry) would be a very good reason for a pardon I think. I'm not sure how much we actually disagree, but while we're talking semantics I'd say stopping malware in this context is a reason for a pardon.

  I still can't believe it's legal to detain people for so long without a trial.

It isn't, unless the defense chooses to waive its right to a speedy trial for strategic reasons.

> I still can't believe it's legal to detain people for so long without a trial.

At least if the article is to be believed, this is probably partially on the defense, in terms of filing a lot of motions and so on. Apparently there are "complex legal issues" that could have been appealed. Wrangling all that takes time.

Crimes committed when he was ages 17-20, according to the article. He was only a minor for the first year.

>or the fact that when the crimes were commited he was a minor

One of the charges he plead guilty to had him updating and still selling the banking malware in 2015, when he was 20, and was already acting publicly as a whitehat.

In many places you can be tried as a minor even after turning 18.

Pardons can be issued for any reason, or no reason. They are entirely at the discretion of the executive

Parent was arguing whether or not a pardon should be made, not whether it could be made, which or more or less orthogonal.

That the executive has this power does not make it a good/just thing. Lowpro is discussing the latter.