[fweespeech]

While I'm vastly amused by your post, the whipping boy isn't a good analogy. As the people on trial are the ones that actually execute the orders, it does act as a deterrent.

> The court was played a clip where Mr Hayes said he was part of a system in which influencing Libor was "commonplace", although he admitted he was a "serial offender".

Even if you only put 5% of these guys in jail, its still enough of a risk some people might choose to be honest.

[steego]

You're right. My whipping boy analogy is a bit leaky, especially if one tries to project it the specifics of this case.

Here's my concern: Employees work under incentive structures that are established by their employers and are supervised by the executive teams. When breaking the law becomes "commonplace" in a system, the people who are responsible for governing that system must be held accountable if the negligence verges on criminal.

As a society, it's critical we have a reasonable legal framework that strongly encourages executives to make sure they have effective internal controls to detect and discourage criminal activity from employees. If we don't have that, then we're effectively giving executives whipping boys who can be used to shield them from the bulk of liability.