Some actually have legal framework designed on that principal. For instance- it’s often criminal if you are trying to pay for sex, and criminal to orchestrate it- but it is not criminal to sell sex. The ideas being that often those selling sex are victims or slaves, there is no reason to make their lives harder for trying to survive- but those buying or orchestrating sex are the ones feeding that arrangement and getting the primary benefits. By not criminalizing the sex worker- it not only allows sex workers to seek legal help and dispute mediation- but it also means they can turn in pimps, traffickers etc. without risk to self- a motivating factor that often “traps” workers.
Likewise- those buying or using drugs are often not criminals- but drug dealers might be. Similar idea- addiction isn’t an inherently willful criminal behavior that is best remedied with prison. Prison takes away the ability to use drugs- but only while in prison. The factors that led to addiction aren’t addressed and are still there- often made worse by the hardships of imprisonment and release. Targeting those who supply the drugs at a cost to others and society can be a more worthwhile investment- and in some cases decriminalization and regulation can be a good choice too.
But simply speaking- we have layers of “middle management” for exactly this reason. It is rare when there is a huge scandal for those supposedly responsible for an organization to take blame or consequence. Usually some underling is pinned with the blame- someone without the wealth and social wealth to protect them. Money can buy a lot in the legal system- so sometimes people just don’t go after the “head” because it’s pointless. Guilty or not they have the resources to create a prolonged battle that IF they lose will still cost far more than can be gained from it. There may be personal consequences or consequences to other powerful people who will use their resources to prevent things to protect themselves. And in the end- even if they get pinned their positions usually make them too “valuable” and connected to see punishment as harsh as someone with lesser power.
One can also curry favor by not exposing others- who will then help reduce the consequences or mitigate the negative effects as a silent pact. So- in head cases where there is a problem and people demand someone’s head on a chopping block- they’ll nail the person they know that they can get, that they know is unlikely to be able to put up a painful and damaging fight.
And the real sad part? We are all to blame too. We demand answers and results. When something bad happens someone must answer for it. That means that they will find someone, wether there is a person who “deserves” it or not. When we see something go wrong and we decide that it deserves harsh punishment to satisfy our emotional needs even if that punishment doesn’t make logical sense? A powerful person isn’t going to fall on their own sword over something that probably should be handled with more leniency. Someone else is taking the fall and that someone will most likely not have the ability to take as hard a hit or bounce back the way the powerful person could- but we put them there because we said there would be blood by Wednesday and we didn’t care who’s it was.
What’s more- the wealthy profit from this kind of labor but so do we. We’ve known our food and toys and clothes were being worked on by undocumented workers and people in foreign countries in terrible conditions for many decades. It means we can buy lots of cheap stuff we like. We are complicit. There is no penalty for us. We don’t lose either way. The status of “illegal” and inability to do many things because of it means these people can largely only work jobs most people don’t want anyway. They probably aren’t “stealing your job” unless your job sucks. Instead they do jobs that would pay usually minimum wage or so, for less. We get cheaper prices, if they get caught more replace them and we keep the cheap stuff we got without consequence.
So most people are inclined to not really do anything about it wether that is more “right leaning” like deportation, or “left leaning” like amnesties etc- because the system works well for most people. Most people- if a huge round up and deportation happens- won’t notice a difference. Maybe their favorite food place closes or gets some new staff- but most people aren’t connected to the individual human beings. They are like robots- doing these jobs out of people’s view, interchangeable so long as the world keeps spinning as it has.
So I dunnoh- maybe we should lock up the people who profit and benefit from the work of undocumented workers and set the workers free? Or maybe we could do an exchange program? Who knows. That may be too harsh too. All I know is we all play our part. We can blame the greed of others because they at more effective at leveraging that greed than us- but we aren’t so different. Locking up a good percent of the population for benefiting from the labors of undocumented workers would be impractical of course- hurt society and the economy. But... isn’t that the same reason the wealthy often get off or get leniency in wrongs? Because punishment would be impractical and would hurt society and the economy? So maybe we are more alike in this than we think.
tl:dr people at the top can't be taken out because whole company would close and cause further damage to the entire local population. The company that lost the 600 workers turned around and raised wages and hired local people, even busing some over from other towns.
A better outcome would be to charge a steep fine to the company, one steep enough to hurt without causing bankruptcy or closure. (After arresting illegals)
To be clear I never said a good portion of that. Not about “arresting illegals” etc. if the Tl:dr was meant as a summation of my post it is inaccurate. If it is meant as a reply to my post I apologize for assuming.
A better outcome would be to charge a steep fine to the company, one steep enough to hurt without causing bankruptcy or closure. (After arresting illegals)