I don't think it's reasonable to assume that because some companies were prosecuted under the statute(s) that they, or industry in general, engage in just as much activity as they would have unregulated.
It's a very natural thing for someone who has status to think that they should be able to cash in on that power.
Everyone with responsibility is looking at a pile of money every day, all they have to do is reach out and grab some. And after all, they 'work hard' so why shouldn't they? (Is the internal logic they might use).
Most businesses are commodities, it's hard to compete on price or anything else. It makes much more sense to compete on some other basis.
In 2020 most industries continue to run on soft grease. The next time you go to a sporting event, look at the Box Seats and consider that 100% of them are business write-offs, used to 'entertain' i.e. to 'give a gift' to someone in business they are not otherwise allowed to do.
There is no such thing as a Free Lunch
Some might even argue that while it might be unethical to bribe a judge, it's altogether different for commercial kickbacks. Why should an exec who has toiled all of his life leave the profits to the considerably more corrupt owners? ... is the internal logic they might use.
When you think about the nature of power and influence - such activities are the natural course of action, and it takes a pretty strong, moral social organization + strong laws to overcome it.
I guess it's a good thing that most regular people in the West think bribery is bad, and that at least it's not something they should do. That probably took a few hundred years of indoctrination at least.
Ok, you disagree. But after writing "Yes it is", none of your following 8 sentences seem to support your opinion.
If someone is prosecuted and assumed guilty of a crime, then it proves that the law does not prevent the activity 100%. However, it also seems virtually certain that it prevents some of the crime.
If someone claimed that because people are arrested for murder all the time, the law(s) against murder have no effect, is that really serious? Or is it just the sort of thing people like to say, but everyone knows better?
If you make a statement and then don't support it, it creates the unfortunate appearance that you're not expressing sincere opinions, or if you are, that you won't explain where they come from.
You left out an unfortunate appearance: that the poster might be rationalizing the practice of bribery as "everybody does it" specifically because the poster engages in bribery.
