The other side of the coin is quite damaging to our society as well - a defendant being judgement proof (having nothing to penalize or fine) can deprive claimants of funds needed to repair the damage of the crime - this, again, is a case where the government awarding funds and then regaining those funds from the defendant independently would be quite beneficial.
1. White-collar criminals might be more significantly deterred by the threat of any prison time, perhaps because they have more to lose or because such crimes have more premeditation.
2. Prison might work as a deterrent in general, but if 20yrs will already ruin your life then the additional threat of another 80yrs might have little to no impact.
3. Rehabilitation might have a stronger effect than deterrence, which could point to hybrid solutions leveraging both effects, supposing they mix appropriately.
For example, If a crime is punished with incarceration, it seems unlikely that a person would make a calculated decision that 5 years in prison is an acceptable risk but 10 is not.
Companies can not be rehabilitated because they aren't moral beings. They only understand one thing: profit. Thus for companies the financial deterrent is effective and appropriate.
Most people learn over time when they are young that it is a losing proposition.
