[nickff]

Aren't people constantly arguing that deterrence is ineffective against individuals, and that rehabilitation is best? I don't take a personal view on these things, but I would imagine that the people arguing for more severe 'punishment' of corporations and white-collar criminals are the ones arguing for lenience in violent and other individual crime.

[hansvm]

It's possible for both of those views to coexist. I have no idea if the data fits such a model, but off the top of my head here are a few factors which might matter.

1. White-collar criminals might be more significantly deterred by the threat of any prison time, perhaps because they have more to lose or because such crimes have more premeditation.

2. Prison might work as a deterrent in general, but if 20yrs will already ruin your life then the additional threat of another 80yrs might have little to no impact.

3. Rehabilitation might have a stronger effect than deterrence, which could point to hybrid solutions leveraging both effects, supposing they mix appropriately.

[s1artibartfast]

At a high level, I think it would be silly to say that deterrence is entirely ineffective. I think most individuals making serious arguments against it state that it is only effective in certain circumstances, it has diminishing returns, and as a country, the US errors on the side of sentences which are much longer than necessary.

For example, If a crime is punished with incarceration, it seems unlikely that a person would make a calculated decision that 5 years in prison is an acceptable risk but 10 is not.

[nightcracker]

The idea that companies and humans are in any way equivalent is preposterous.

Companies can not be rehabilitated because they aren't moral beings. They only understand one thing: profit. Thus for companies the financial deterrent is effective and appropriate.

[not2b]

Exactly. If fines are less than the profit gained, the only price is the bad publicity and that often fades away after a few news cycles. This verdict sends a message that you might as well destroy a competitor in this way because the price will be insignificant even if you're caught. There might be personal risk if an individual is charged, but they can give some flunkie the job, make sure nothing is in writing, and then blame the employee or contractor if anything goes wrong.

We really need the "death penalty" for companies: dissolve the corporation after a certain number of offenses, sell the assets off to raise money to compensate the victims.

[Spooky23]

People say all sorts of things. How often do you drive 90 mph on the highway?

Most people learn over time when they are young that it is a losing proposition.