Yes, but why are individual crimes easy to prosecute and corporate crimes not. These are not things that just popped into being like a thunderstorm. They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way.
I.e., shoplifter steals candy bar, surveillance camera has clear view of the shoplifters face, and of the theft, and security camera in parking lot gets license plate of car they drive away in. Easy conviction for prosecutor, as there little question of who committed nor of what crime was committed.
Contrast that with the GP's example "business type" crime. To prove the "business" committed a crime, they have to find a way to prove the business, when buying the truckload of candy bars, at the time of the purchase, intentionally never intended to pay back the loan taken out to buy the truckload. Proving intent (i.e., effectively "mind-reading") is way more difficult than proving a crime happened in the "shoplifter" example above. There's no security camera footage recording the "intent" of the business when it purchased the truckload of candy bars.
> They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way.
It’s difficult to prove intent but we make that necessary to prove when it doesn’t have to be. It could be that negligence is enough for it to be a crime.
The difficulty with corporations is that demonstrating anything about their behavior at all (negligence, intent, ignorance, malice, stupidity...) requires doing so for a corporate body, in the sense of that word that refers to a thing visibly composed of many other distinct things.
What does a corporation want? What does that question even mean? Was a corporation negligent? Does that refer to its officers? Its employees? Specific employees? A written plan?
It's not that hard to come up with a definition of what you mean by a corporation for the purposes of defining a specific type of behavior. For example, you may regard negligence as being a property of the board, exhibited by the decisions the board makes. However, any given definition likely misses cases where a reasonable person would still tend to feel that "the corporation was negligent".
This doesn't come from the for-profit aspects of a corporation, or its existence as part of a capitalist economy. It comes from the aggregate nature of a corporation, and talking about any sort of intent-ful behavior in the context of an aggregate is challenging.
Would we be able to have a world in which there are almost no bugs? Yes, definitely. Would that be a better world?... I tend to say no. Because we trade more bugs for faster development. Because not all bugs are critical. Because some requirements are not completely consistent. And other reasons.
I imagine it's the same with the law. That is not to say there are no improvements to be made, but unless multiple people with lots of experience in the field come and say "this would be better with no side effects" I would be cautious.
If you're trying to imply such crimes are hard to prosecute because The Powers That Be™ deliberately made it that, how does that explain the difficulty in prosecuting long firm fraud (and other white collar crimes)? You can argue that price fixing being hard to prosecute helps "corporate America" or whatever, but basically everyone is united against long firm fraud. Yet, it's hard to prosecute. Why is that?
Because that's seemingly what you were asking about? If not clarify what you originally meant rather than beating around the bush then being surprised when people aren't focusing on the things you want.
>>>Like what? Moreover, what does this hold for public policy? Should we bring back debtor's prisons? That would be the obvious solution to long firm fraud.
>>I’m not an expert, but the way you wrote your comment seemed to be discounting this possibility for no discernible reason
>Debtor's prisons were widely considered to be cruel, which is why they were abolished basically everywhere in the developed world.
* policy is majorly influenced, to the point of near dictatorship, by shareholder profits
* thus, crimes perpetuated in the name of these profits are vague, hard to define, hard to prosecute
* some white collar crime, that shareholders despise, remains difficult to prosecute despite being aligned with the interests of this dominating power
The idea is similar to Tragedy of the Commons issues. The collective community, or aggregate view is "fraud bad", yet the individual, provided opportunity and anonymity, acts in the their own self interest, especially where punishment is viewed as difficult or low plausibility.
Similar issues occur with the general concept of honesty, and views of social honesty. Surveyed, personal belief is that most respondents would state that other humans should reply honestly, with accurate information. However, many, in personal action and isolated opportunities are quite willing to embellish, neglect to correct a mistake, or outright lie.
Neglecting to correct a mistake is one of the most difficult, and shows up quite frequently in markets. With the markets often congratulating recipients for taking advantage of fools who priced something "wrong." Lots of various rationalizations that then get used. "Its their own fault", "they won't notice the difference", "I'm just more clever", "we deserve it because of our status", ect... Usually, seems more frequent the further away, the less personal, and the more abstract the lie or theft. Much like the article title. Office Space did this joke a long time ago.
Peter: Ah no, you don't understand. It's very complicated. It's, uh, it's aggregate, so I'm talking about fractions of a penny here. And over time they add up to a lot.
Joanna: Oh okay. So you're gonna be making a lot of money, right?
Peter: Yeah.
Joanna: Right. It's not yours?
Peter: Well it becomes ours.
Joanna: How is that not stealing?