Punitive punishment serves as a deterrent to other businesses.
I really dislike the black or white thinking of, "if we're not maximizing recovery then victims will get nothing."
Punitive punishment serves as a deterrent to other businesses.
I really dislike the black or white thinking of, "if we're not maximizing recovery then victims will get nothing."
It’s not a question of black and white thinking. If a business took $20,000 from me, and prosecutors told me that they could get the full $20,000 back but instead they’re going to set some of it on fire and only get $10,000, I’d have some serious questions.
Maybe answerable ones, if the deterrence theory works out! But I don’t understand who it is that’s supposed to be getting punished or deterred. The owners are losing the business anyway, what do they care if you put the assets to productive use or not?
> I don’t understand who it is that’s supposed to be getting punished or deterred
The investors who will continue to make money from the business that committed fraud and lost virtually no profit from it under the current model. As long as fraud continues not to affect the bottom line, businesses aren't going to stop committing it.
> Punitive punishment serves as a deterrent to other businesses.
You mean the owners and management and employees? Because a "business" in the way it's being suggested isn't a human with emotions or feelings, you can't "deter" a legal construct...
What about the investors into businesses that make money through fraud and other illegal acts? My theory is that if the return on investment for a business making profits through fraud is literally zero, investors would figure out a way to start avoiding investing in fraudulent businesses pretty fast.
If you can't deter a business, what function do fines and monetary legal judgements on businesses have?