I would say rather, humans who feel unconstrained because they are insulated from view, cupability, and consequence by virtue of their institutional agency-lau

I would say rather, humans who feel unconstrained because they are insulated from view, cupability, and consequence by virtue of their institutional agency-laundering, will matter of factly engage in almost any kind of awful behavior, especially bloodless ones, exactly so long as they are able to allay cognitive dissonance, which is very completely done when it's not them, it's <institution> or <role> or <rule>. The difference in taxonomy of standard evils executed by bankers, C-suite types, the very rich, religious authorities, and politicians, vary primarily as a function of the opportunities afforded by each role and the risk-reward surface it affords. Those who thrive in (and most effectively exploit without cognitive dissonance) a given institution in turn underpins the attractor and filter functions for those roles. Cops priests politicians entrepreneurs—they all have their well-known shadow-side stereotypes, for the damn good reason that those stereotypes are rooted in the recurring abuse each invites. Humans, anonymized and/or elevated, deeply suck to at least one standard deviation. Or perhaps you can say, there is no shortage of humans who suck, exactly enough as needed to fully exploit the available amoral crime space; and recruit for it, teasing out and amplifying what might otherwise have been latent. That our society (or I would say, species) has not figured out how to corral this behavior bodes ill.