"Prosecuting individual actors" and "treating corporations as hostile entities" are not mutually exclusive; indeed I'd say we should all strive to do both.

A major point of establishing a corporation is the liability shield it grants. Sometimes it doesn't work (google piercing the corporate veil) but, the whole idea is to grant indemnity to people within a corporation for the corporation's actions.

I agree, people within corporations need to be held responsible for their actions.

But a big part of why that isn't happening is that when people kill people from behind the shield of a corporation, we can't even get people to agree that anything should be done about it, because "they were just following incentives". And any attempt to change the incentives is met with "but how can they do business if they're expected to comply with these onerous regulations" or "but that's socialism!". Instead, we're just supposed to trust that if it made money for a corporation it must have been good, because the invisible hand of the market would never allow it to be otherwise.

Until we break the idea that corporations are good by default, it's going to be hard to persuade people that going after people within a corporation for their wrongdoing is a good idea.

Perhaps you're right! Many countries engage in genocide and war crimes. I think that that should also be punished.

Who cares? Talking about specific corporations/companies is just derailing the discussion. An effective, enforceable deterrent against countries from committing genocide should apply to all countries, and an effective, enforceable deterrent against companies murdering people should apply to all companies.

It seems like you're trying to make the argument that some companies don't need a rule against murder because they wouldn't commit murder, but that's absurd. It isn't unfair to have a rule against murder apply to a company that wouldn't commit murder. That's just how rules work, and if you have to pretend you don't understand that, I start to think you're just grasping at straws to try to justify being against a rule against murder for companies.

If you're generally against economic regulation for companies, you might correctly point out that companies committing murder is a pretty extreme example, and most regulations aren't against such extremes. But that's missing the point. The situation is that extreme; people within corporations are committing murders and the corporations are receiving, at best, slap on the wrist fines or civil settlements that only affect shareholders and rarely affect the decision-makers who committed murder. No matter how anti-regulation you are, surely we can agree that "we can't have a rule against murder" is too little regulation?