You didn't understand what the article is advocating. The thesis lays it out: The increasing criminalisation of corporate behaviour in America is bad for

You didn't understand what the article is advocating. The thesis lays it out: The increasing criminalisation of corporate behaviour in America is bad for the rule of law and for capitalism. The author then uses the fact that punishment for the criminal activities by corporations has been privatized through civil courts instead of performed publicly by regulation and prosecution to attempt to gin up outrage. Yes, private enforcement instead of public enforcement is less efficient in many ways. But given the deluded republican ideology and their band of useful idiots (corporations are people, my friend! [1]) it isn't the case that we are choosing between private enforcement and public enforcement of our laws, but rather between private enforcement and no enforcement. The goal is clear: to allow corporations to not be punished. Note also the cute aside where the author attempts to shift blame for corporate activities to individual managers, who can then be charged (in lieu of any punishment of the corporation for acts done by the corporation). The modern version of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c