This subject has been debated previously, and my personal view has not changed - these men should not have been pardoned for their offences.
I entirely appreciate that the law was a bad law, but that does not mean that because it was a bad law, that it is invalidated by the passage of time.
Were that the case, then there would be endless other examples of bad law that should see its convictions quashed - and that is not only not practical, in my view it I not legally or morally right.
It I were convicted for speeding and forty miles an hour in a thirty zone, and then years later, the limit was amended to fort, meaning I would not be convicted today, does that mean my endorsement is removed and my fine reimbursed? No, and I would not expect it to be so - I was convicted under the law at the time, and that is how the law operates.
We cannot re-write history to take into account our greater humanity and understanding, what is done is done.
Simply because we as a society are enlightened enough to feel shame over our bad laws does not mean that the criminals convicted under it were not guilty. Clearly they were - and a 'pardon' does not alter that fact.