Who's the Real Criminal, Chillingworth of Dimmsdale?

The seminar in class brought up the argument of who was worse because of his actions, Chillingworth or Dimmsdale? Chillingworth is obviously a bad person who lies constantly and is very manipulative, whereas Dimmsdale is an honest man--and a priest--who makes one mistake and has to lie to cover it up. Chillingworth feels no remorse for what he has done, but guilt is almost literally draining the life out of Dimmsdale. So who is more at fault? Chillingworth may have committed more sins than Dimmsdale, but it is more expected of Dimmsdale to be perfect. This situation reminds me of The Crucible. It reminds me of Abigail Williams and Proctor. Abigail lied and manipulated everyone and was purely evil, but Proctor was a good man who only made one mistake (which happened to be adultery, just like Dimmsdale!). In The Crucible, it was obvious that Abigail was evil and Proctor is a good person, but Proctor ended up dying for his mistake while Abigail got away. Does that mean that it's worse for a good person to do one bad thing than for a bad person--who has already done many bad things--to do one more? It's expected of a bad person to do bad things, but when a good person does something bad, it seems to be more severe of an offense. So basically, the message here is that it's ok for bad people to do bad things because that's who they are, but good people can't do bad things because they are supposed to be good. Everyone makes mistakes, so giving people who do a lot of bad things a break while punishing the people who never do bad things seems a little backwards to me!