There are those who believe that with regard to corporations, the principle of deterrence and retribution should not be discussed at all, but only the principle of rehabilitation, even without imposing fines. Mihailis Evangelos Diamantis, "Clockwork Corporations: A Theory of Corporate Punishment" U. Io. Col. (November 2017) (hereinafter: Diamantis, Corporate Punishment), can be viewed at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3057313. On page 11 of the article it is stated that:
"Fixing corporate character as the sole criterion for the extent and method of corporate punishment leads to some surprising, though ultimately beneficial, recommendations, such as abolishing the corporate criminal fine."
Similarly: Albert W. Alschuler, "Two Ways of Thinking About the Punishment of Corporations", 46 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1359, 1359 (2009)., which, as a rule, opposes the imposition of criminal liability on a corporation, believes that the only purpose that can be achieved by imposing criminal liability on a corporation is its rehabilitation. At p. 1389 he notes:
"Because corporate criminal punishment is not really criminal punishment as people customarily understand it, harsh exemplary penalties are inappropriate. The goal should be to induce an appropriate level of monitoring within the organization"
The rehabilitation of a corporation, especially a corporation that employs many employees, is important in order to prevent the recurrence of offenses in the future. Real rehabilitation that brings about organizational change and a culture of compliance with the law, along with supervision and control mechanisms that will prevent offenses as much as possible, will contribute to the fight against corruption, more than any fine. The Honorable Justice, later Deputy President Elyakim Rubinstein, noted this in the Israel Ports case (in paragraph 14 of his judgment):
"Rehabilitation in the literal sense of the corporate aspect is intended at the end of the day to incentivize the corporation to internalize the costs of the offense, and to deter it from looking to the future; However, it seems that in the corporate context these punitive measures, and in particular a public service order, should be seen as seeking, it seems, to carry out rehabilitation in the broad sense, which is intended "to benefit society and the victim alongside the rehabilitation and education of the violator of the law" (paragraph 11 of the President's opinion). When we are dealing with a corporation, it seems that the conservative approach, which relates to the 'correction' of the individual offender and bringing him to justice, does not see the full picture, since rehabilitation in a broad sense in the corporate context represents its normative corporate behavior in the future and also its contribution at the current stage to the benefit of the public."