[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I voted no because "not all sins are crimes, and not all crimes are sins" as they say.




If he has broken his oath of duty and endangered the state then he could be charged for those crimes. His lying could be a key piece of evidence to convict him of treason or gross misconduct or whatever. As far as the law is concerned sins are only relevant when they contribute to the carrying out of a crime and even then they are simply considered actions of the accused pure and simple. The law (when it is applied properly) is not concerned with sins, only crimes.

What you say actually makes a lot of sense to me. I think maybe I applied an idea to a term without thinking too much about reality. I actually came to think of high treason while considering if what I said made sense or not.

The example I gave is quite real - I came to think of something rather recent and quite horrible. In 2006, Swedish prime minister Göran Persson lied in commenting a decision taken by the parliament, where his party made an agreement with another party. He said that they had decided to "stop immigration, because that is what the Swedish public wants". This statement was blown up to immense proportions in the mass media and was presented as a "scandal". It was a scandal, but not in the way they made it seem. Because when that year had come to its closure half a year or so later, immigration for that year was an all time record, higher than any other year before that. But this was hardly commented at all in the mass media.

So they didn't stop immigration, and they never intended to; he just said so. I think it would be very convenient and just if he really could be punished for such a thing.