Immunity on the hot seat

The principle of immunity has come under heavy bombardment from critical political thinkers, intellects who constantly have their disputes with simple-minded politicians and voters following them unreflecting. Former US President Donald Trump was granted by the US Supreme Court a sentence after which official duties fall under the idea of immunity while private acts don't asking the lower court to make a clear distinction between the two forms. In practical terms, private acts can be twisted into official acts. The fire is under the seat of any leader sitting on the throne of their nations.

"The king can not do wrong" has been the principle of kingdoms around the world at all times and in all corners. This principle has transcended down to constitutions of democratic jurisdictions. The idea behind it is that during the time in office a President, Prime Minister, or simple MP can be taken to court over his actions this person will have no time for his mandate given. While MPs by Parliament's decision can lose their immunity the same does not apply to Presidents, Prime Ministers, or Ministers.

The current situation in the USA proves that this is not the case. Donald Trump can with ease perform his duties as a candidate of Republicans for the upcoming election. In fact, the time in court and GAG order fines increase his popularity with his fan base. Even a possible sentence of imprisonment could not stop him from running as a Presidential candidate or executing the presidential duties.

The second line of argument for the principle of immunity is after the end of office the leaders can be held accountable for their actions. The reason behind the demand for timely legal punishment is to stop an unwanted development right in time and not as an intellectual exercise in years to come. In the fight against "common criminals," time is of importance. Leaders have to make decisions in many cases in a different way than their voters. They depend on information they often can not verify that they are as accurate as they think. Can this honestly allow them to violate the law of the country, International law, and morals? The line between political argument and criminal action on the highest level of society is marginally slim. Political killings like those ordered by presidents of the USA and executed by the CIA, or the Mossad by Israel PM and KGB by Russian presidents, and e.g. torture in Guantanamo Bay or Iraq.

Law professionals should be qualified enough to come up with a very fine-designed law to allow only very serious cases to attack a president during his tenure in office and lesser charges to be a matter for later intellectual legal exercises which could help to keep up the fine line constantly updated. This can eliminate the political game of distinguishing between official and private actions always. When democratic leaders are seen as something else than kings they must be submitted to other rules than kings and constantly be held accountable for their actions not only at retirement age. Richard Nixon, former US president should have been a good example of legal responsibility in a democratic dispensation instead he was allowed to walk for free in moral shame.