This sounds an awful lot like a "something is better than nothing" fallacy. With the settlement, there is practically zero benefit to anyone who was harmed. Wit

This sounds an awful lot like a "something is better than nothing" fallacy. With the settlement, there is practically zero benefit to anyone who was harmed. Without such a settlement, there is zero benefit to anyone harmed. "Practically zero" being greater than "zero" is worth not punishing literal evil?