I was reading this article about the morals of Star Wars. I was kind of intrigued by the guy's suggestion that the redemption of Vader was questionable.
This got me thinking about Teal'c. He's basically a war criminal who had a change of heart. Should his prior trangressions go unchallenged? Well they don't. In the first season episode 'Cor-ai', SG-1 travels to Cartago, a planet routinely used by the Goa'uld for the harvesting of hosts. Indeed, one prominent citizen, Hano, recognises Teal'c from when he led a raid years ago, because Teal'c killed his father. He then demands justice.
O'Neill wants to spring his friends and subordinate, but Hammond refuses to give the necessary support saying that since the Bursa were demanding a war criminal be brought to justice for crimes against them, it was morally ambiguous for the SGC to interfere.
All along, Teal'c was willing to submit to whatever punishment the Bursa demanded, including death, in order to give retribution to Hano and as a means of atoning for his crimes, that he admitted freely.
Teal'c did plead guilty from the outset. It was only a fortunate turn of events that saved Teal'c at the last minute. Daniel's most convinving argument was that while his death may give satisfaction to the Bursa and a sense of justice served, it will not inevitable change the fact that Hano's father is dead. But if Teal'c was allowed to live, he could go on fighting the Goa'uld and save the lives of many humans oppressed by them. In effect, he was proposing a life sentence of fighting to eliminate this oppression from the galaxy.
It was quite a thoughtful episode, which, while having the obligatory happy ending, posed a lot of questions about the consequences of Teal'c past.