Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism calls for aggressive criminal investigations, and I agree.

It’s clear that there was a lot of outright criminality, and the broken window theory of law enforcement works with white collar criminals too:

Of course, it isn’t clear whether deterrence works against white collar criminals, but the flip side is William Bratton style zero tolerance policing was successful in seemingly ungovernable New York. The theory was that allowing minor infractions, like window breaking, to go unpunished sent a very visible signal that misdeeds were tolerated. Of course, zero tolerance wasn’t the only technique used by Bratton (he also was big on flexible deployment, shifting officers to neighborhoods that suffered an increase in crime), but it is considered to be an effective policing tool. And Wall Street is so far from having any meaningful policing that it’s a joke.

It seems anything short of regulatory or legal moves that limit career options (read future earning power) is an insufficient disincentive to risky trader and investor behavior.

I would argue that the Wall Street crooks have more to lose than a corner dope dealer.

After all, if they get caught, thrown in jail, and their assets,and possibly those of their spouses and perhaps their children’s college funds, are forfeit, that’s a lot more to lose than getting 3 to 5 in a prison when you had nothing before.