Adding more subjective emotional consideration to a punitive system which is already weighed down beyond the ability to enact swift justice is the opposite of helpful.
Subjective emotional consideration? You mean the discretionary judgment that all standing justices (supreme court or otherwise) have had since the founding of America, and that continues to this day? I won't disagree that the justice system is being weighed down, but we'll save tackling that issue another day.
What’s your point? That people organize themselves to commit crimes?
You mean like a criminal organization? But, and stay with me here, but what if a legal organization seeks to abuse legal loopholes or commit crimes when the calculated profits offset the risks?
That risky behavior is more dangerous when it’s amplified by concentrated capital?
Uh, yes. Risk taking behavior is incredibly more dangerous when power, wealth, or capital is concentrated in fewer hands. If the rail companies chose, they could effectively strangle national defenses, aid and abet foreign actors to cause very serious damage to our national economy (yes, the national economy is a form of national power, and thus defense. I'm not going to argue semantics about how intentionally harming the economy is different than harming military assets).
None of this justifies the phenomenal leap you made to say that an employer is responsible for the lives of their employees. None of this is precedent for the further corruption of the justice system into subjectivity and emotional bias.
Pretty sure I've made it clear in the above that this is neither such a drastic leap in logic or risk for lawmakers, the public, or the country to make. We're literally talking about cracking down on white collar crime, and somehow it's this sin against all natural goodness. Neither does a precedent need to be made; we're not writing a law, none of us are lawyers, and this isn't a court of law, so I'm unsure if this is yet another attempt to shift goalposts to some much higher, loftier standard than the general discourse it was meant to be, or if you're somehow under the delusion that these arguments are anything more than idle conversation amongst the general public, and that you somehow think you're in the senate hearing a bill proposition.
Can’t you see that you’re actually making it worse?
In what way? So far you've only agued using common logical fallacies by shifting goalposts, virtue signaling, and obfuscating the actual point you're trying to make.