Bardzo proszę o skorygowanie i pomoc w ulepszeniu eseju

Cześć wszystkim. Mój esej jest za długi i nie jestem pewna co i czy w ogóle kasować. Proszę też o sprawdzenie błędów i ewentualne sugestie, co można by zmienić. Z góry dziękuję za pomoc :-)

Should politicians be punished in the same way as private citizens?

Nowadays politicians, in view of their functions, have a number of privileges, immunities and facilities, which are not available to others. The various privileges are useful abroad. They are necessary in case of misunderstandings. What is more, during attempt to harm a politician’s reputation, a potential saboteur has restricted leeway. However, it might happen that to our governments are taken inappropriate people who treat being politician as a work, not a vocation, therefore they abused their privileges. For this reason many people are wondering whether politicians shall bear criminal responsibility in common to ordinary citizens or not.

Firstly, any criminal should avoid criminal liability regardless of their social position. Otherwise, it would mean that some people can suit any rights to their needs, meanwhile common citizens must respect all rights without exceptions. Such inequalities cause doubt in the rightness of the idea of law. Besides, the law should be equal for everyone and no one should be above of it.
Moreover, politicians take an active part in a creation of the law, therefore they cannot be these who breaking it and avoiding a fair punishment. They should care about the law and give a right example for others. This shows honesty of the people responsible for creating the law. It can also help keeping faith in the good intentions of politicians and proves that they are not blinded by the lust for power and that they are not abusing their privileges. When they behave inappropriately, they should accept the consequences of their deeds because human decency requires it.
Another vital factor is to public figures should have an impeccable moral character and to be transparent. Such an approach to instating takes place in many countries. There, this person cannot be instated again. Politicians have to stand out from the others of morality and do not set their own code, which protects their interests and system of a narrow social elite.

To sum up, bearing criminal responsibility by politicians in common to other citizens is a relevant matter for every society. The immunity should protect politicians when they serve of official duties, but I think that in no case should help avoid criminal responsibility if politicians do act contrary to policies the law in the private action or activity not associated with the served office.

Nowadays politicians, in view of their functions, have a number of privileges, immunities and 'facilities' (nie za bardzo rozumiem co masz na mysli), which are not available to others.
What is more, during AN attempt to harm a politician’s reputation, a potential saboteur has restricted leeway. However, it might happen that to our governments 'are taken' (tu masz zle, trzeba 'takes' albo 'allows') inappropriate people (ale do czego? musisz napisac) who treat being (brak przedimka) politician as 'a' (niepotrzebny) work, not a vocation, therefore they 'abused' (zly czas, tutaj 'abuse') their privileges. For this reason many people are (mozna dodac slowo 'now') wondering whether politicians 'shall' (zle slowo, tutaj 'should') bear criminal responsibility in common 'to' (zle slowo, tutaj 'with') ordinary citizens or not.

Firstly, any criminal 'should' (nie za bardzo, bo piszesz ze kazdy powinnien uciekac od ..) avoid criminal liability regardless of their social position. Otherwise, it would mean that some people can 'suit' (nie za bardzo trafne slowo) any rights to their needs, 'meanwhile' (moze lepsze slowo to 'meanwhile') 'common' (moze lepiej 'ordinary') citizens must respect all rights without exceptions. Such inequalities cause doubt in the 'rightness' (nie, trzeba inne slowo) of the idea of law. Besides, the law should be equal for everyone and no one should be above 'of' (niepotr) it.
Moreover, politicians take an active part in 'a' (zly przedimek, tutaj THE) creation of the law, therefore they cannot be 'these' (zle slowo, tutaj 'those') who 'breaking' (tutaj 'break') it and 'avoiding' (avoid') a fair punishment. They should care about the law and give 'a' (zly przedimek, tutaj 'the') right example for others. This shows honesty of the people responsible for 'creating' (napisz 'the creation of') the law. It can also help keeping faith 'in' (zle slowo, tutaj 'of') the good intentions of politicians and proves that they are not blinded by the lust for power and that they are not abusing their privileges.
Another vital factor is 'to' (zle slowo, tutaj 'that') public figures should have an impeccable moral character and 'to' (niepotr) be transparent. Such an approach to 'instating' (nie rozumiem tego slowa) takes place in many countries. There, this person cannot be 'instated' (chyba zle slowo, czy mowisz o double jeopardy?) again. Politicians have to stand out from the others (tutaj brak pare slow, 'in areas') of morality and 'do' (zle slowo, 'lepiej cannot') 'not' (niepotr) set their own code, which protects their interests and (brak przedimka) system of a narrow social elite.

To sum up, bearing criminal responsibility by politicians in common 'to' (with) other citizens is a relevant matter for every society. The immunity should protect politicians when they serve 'of' (nie, tutaj 'during') official duties, but I think that in no case should IT help TO avoid criminal responsibility if politicians 'do' (niepotr) act contrary to policies (of) the law in 'the' (niepotr) private action or activity not associated with the served office.

Dziękuję serdecznie. Jak tak teraz patrzę, rzeczywiście głupie błędy.
W zdaniu 'Firstly, any criminal 'should'- powinno być not