Final answer:
The pursuit of legal action against fraud is primarily based on the principles of deterrence and justice rather than financial gain or keeping lawyers busy. Legal actions aim to increase the costs of crime, serve justice, and can potentially include restorative justice approaches to crime reduction.
Step-by-step explanation:
Legal Action Against Perpetrators of Fraud
The question concerns the rationale behind taking legal action against perpetrators of fraud. The arguments presented include the notion that prosecution serves as a deterrent, dissuading future fraud; it keeps lawyers employed; it can be financially beneficial due to large cash settlements; and it may offer positive publicity for the victimized entity.
Deterrence through Prosecution
One of the primary arguments in favor of legal action is deterrence. By increasing the costs associated with committing fraud, such as the risk of detection and subsequent punishment, potential offenders may be discouraged from engaging in similar activities. This aligns with the cost-benefit analysis approach adopted by economists in understanding criminal behavior, where individuals weigh the potential gains against the risks and penalties of being caught and prosecuted.
Economic and Publicity Considerations
While the financial incentives from large settlements may be appealing, they are secondary to the concept of justice and the rule of law. The idea that legal action keeps lawyers busy is not a core objective of the justice system. Similarly, while positive publicity could be a side benefit for a defrauded company, the primary goal of legal proceedings is to address wrongdoing and administer justice. Policies such as restorative justice also aim to repair harm and can be cost-effective alternatives to traditional criminal justice approaches.
Overall, while the financial and publicity factors are part of the larger conversation, it is crucial to keep the focus on the pursuit of justice and crime prevention as central reasons for prosecuting fraud.