问题描述：
英语翻译
The law has not responded adequately as the problems discussed above demonstrate.The introductions of Bills C-13 and C-45 have helped the law become more able to combat corporate crime but it is still not enough.Bill C-13 states:While this clause helps,it does not achieve as much as it could.Stronger wording would help,as would penalties that help to dissuade corporations from abusing the system.“The federal government has also established,within the RCMP,Integrated Markets Enforcement Teams (‘IMETs’) to investigate high profile capital markets offences and has committed substantial funding to them.” This is helping the system become better enforced,as long as the powers given to the IMETs are enough to effectively enforce the legislation.Thus far the IMET has been largely criticized for being unable to accomplish enough.As noted by Karen Manarin the IMET was started in 2003 and has only had 9convictions.This seems to be a very small number,with resources that could be better allocated.It seems that there is too much overlap between organizations with similar mandates.Other law enforcement agencies seem to be trying to accomplish what IMET was created for.Also,IMET does not seem to have enough actual power to do much.Their powers seem limited and the organization seems to lack senior staff.
One of the main problems with punishing those who commit corporate crimes is that the current system lacks cohesion.With too many organizations trying to accomplish the same task,that of reducing corporate crime,the result is a fractured and less respected system.The system seems to be less feared by those committing corporate crimes,as the punishments are less harsh than they should be and the accused are less likely to be found guilty due to the complex nature of the charges.The background to most of the crimes is convoluted and hard to examine properly.By this very aspect it is less likely that the government has the resources to decipher what actually happened
The law has not responded adequately as the problems discussed above demonstrate.The introductions of Bills C-13 and C-45 have helped the law become more able to combat corporate crime but it is still not enough.Bill C-13 states:While this clause helps,it does not achieve as much as it could.Stronger wording would help,as would penalties that help to dissuade corporations from abusing the system.“The federal government has also established,within the RCMP,Integrated Markets Enforcement Teams (‘IMETs’) to investigate high profile capital markets offences and has committed substantial funding to them.” This is helping the system become better enforced,as long as the powers given to the IMETs are enough to effectively enforce the legislation.Thus far the IMET has been largely criticized for being unable to accomplish enough.As noted by Karen Manarin the IMET was started in 2003 and has only had 9convictions.This seems to be a very small number,with resources that could be better allocated.It seems that there is too much overlap between organizations with similar mandates.Other law enforcement agencies seem to be trying to accomplish what IMET was created for.Also,IMET does not seem to have enough actual power to do much.Their powers seem limited and the organization seems to lack senior staff.
One of the main problems with punishing those who commit corporate crimes is that the current system lacks cohesion.With too many organizations trying to accomplish the same task,that of reducing corporate crime,the result is a fractured and less respected system.The system seems to be less feared by those committing corporate crimes,as the punishments are less harsh than they should be and the accused are less likely to be found guilty due to the complex nature of the charges.The background to most of the crimes is convoluted and hard to examine properly.By this very aspect it is less likely that the government has the resources to decipher what actually happened
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读