The massive sentences handed out to the likes of WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers and Enron's Jeff Skilling have sparked plenty of debate about whether the punishment fits the crime.

Writing in The Atlantic early this year, columnist Stuart Taylor Jr says it's just over-the-top:

"The spectacle of former CEOs Bernard Ebbers and Jeffrey Skilling getting sent to prison for 25 and 24 years, respectively, reminded me a bit of Roman emperors throwing criminals to the lions and bears to gratify circus crowds. Yes, Ebbers and Skilling are world-class crooks. The first helped inflate WorldCom's profits by billions of dollars. The second presided over the multiple frauds that caused the collapse of Enron, the largest corporate bankruptcy in history. They helped squander the nest eggs and kill the jobs of thousands of people. But does this justify locking them up for longer than we do most murderers?"

But according to Christine Hurt, associate professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law, the sentences reflect society's changed values.

In her paper, Of Breaches of the Peace, Home Invasions and Securities Fraud, Hurt argues that securities fraud is now regarded as an attack on wealth and savings, particularly retirement funds. As a result, the sentences mirros these values. Securities fraud therefore is as bad as physical attacks, larceny, burglary, aggravated robbery and invasions of one's home by people with bad intent:

"In this era of relative peace in the U.S., when life expectancy grows longer each year and many Americans are confident that violence cannot penetrate their gated communities and jumbo-sized sport utility vehicles, the greatest fear might be personal financial crisis, not bodily harm. Indeed, the prospect of outliving one's financial resources and being a burden on family or social services at best or dependent on thinly stretched social services at worst may seem more probable, than the prospect of being the victim of random violence. As lifetimes increase and U.S. workers live longer after retirement than ever before, individual futures are dependent on the strength and security of these retirement accounts. Whereas in earlier times, four walls and a roof sheltered a family's bodies and most prized possessions, now a 401k account may truly shelter that family's most prized possession - its financial future, including access to future health care necessary for the prolonged end-of-life period. In these modern times, a person's retirement account may be her castle.

"Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines also reflect a desire to punish more harshly thefts that threaten the security of these new castles, retirement accounts."

Indeed as she suggests, the harsh punishments for corporate misconduct might reflect something else: our interest in protecting where we park our money is now on a par with the values that we place on being free from bodily harm and protecting our homes.

"Perhaps corporate greed extends beyond the boardrooms to its shareholders," she writes.