> The intentions of both were noble, but you can't simply say the good outweighed the bad. That isn't how the law currently works or in my opinion should work. You have to take all of the good and bad into account.

Isn't saying the good outweighed the bad how you take all of the good and bad into account? Anything else is to say that everyone who is not without sin should be in prison, which is... everyone.

The problem with your alternative is that no one looks to the sins of mostly-good common people, but anyone who moves against the establishment is thrust into the spotlight where any human fallibility is seized as an excuse to punish them, not for the thing being punished, but for the thing that put them in the government's cross hairs.

High ranking government officials have been known to reveal classified information when it's in their political interest and not be prosecuted because no one was out looking for an excuse to prosecute them. There is no justice if the same thing doesn't happen in the case where the thing revealed is inconvenient to the government.