The media and some Democrats are comparing this to the strictest version of the PreTrump norm. They ignore that Trump's pardons were not the first to not have followed any normal process.
Take one example, GHWB pardoned the people involved in Iran Contra. What they and probably GHWB did was of far greater importance than Hunter's tax avoidance and lying on an application to get a gun. In an action meaning we were providing weapons to both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, they secretly sold American weapons to Iran, although we publicly supported Iraq and then used that money to fund the right wing Contras in Nicaragua. Funding the Contras was against legislation passed by Congress. Clearly a bigger deal than Hunter's transgressions. Not to mention, without the pardons, GHWB might have at least faced questioning in their trials.
Many articles have mentioned Biden's legacy, but was there any mention at all of Iran/Contra or those pardons when he died? For those saying that Hunter never had to serve a day in prison, the same was true for some of these people.
To mention the obvious, Trump pardoned Manaford, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and many others ... was himself indicted and convicted of 34 felonies ... and the country reelected him.
On big decisions, decades ago, I was advised a good idea was to not just look at pros and cons, but to consider the worst case scenario of either path and how I would feel if it came to pass. Here the worst case scenario of not pardoning is very obvious - his son could be destroyed. Hunter is a very vulnerable person, who could still fail, but can you imagine Joe Biden's guilt if he didn't pardon him and he got a long prison term and he killed himself?
I may be wrong, but I think there is more negative media and from the party of the President criticism of Biden's pardon than of either Bush's or Trump's. Could it be that people who hold themselves to higher standards (as Biden has) are criticized more in the rare instances where they don't live up to that standard?