Why No Prosecutions?

Adam Levitin of Credit Slips explains why "there will not be any serious prosecutions of senior bank executives or institutions for the financial crisis," but he's not happy with the explanation:

Why No Prosecutions, by Adam Levitin: The NYTimes had a very good editorial today bemoaning, with resignation, that there will not be any serious prosecutions of senior bank executives or institutions for the financial crisis.  The biggest fish to be caught was Lee Farkas. Who? That's the point. There have been prosecutions of some truly small fry fringe players and some settlements that are insignificant from institutional points of view (even $500 million, the SEC's record settlement with Goldman over Abacus was a yawn for Goldman), but that's it. ...

My prediction is that when the history of the Obama Administration is written, there will be some positive things to say about it, but also two particular blots on its escutcheon.  First, the failure to act decisively to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, and second, the failure to hold anyone accountable for the financial crisis. ... Both are explained by the "Obama administration’s emphasis on protecting the banks from any perceived threat to their post-bailout recovery." 

The logic here is that financial stability and economic recovery are more important than rule of law. There's an argument to be made that law has to give way to basic economic needs.  I, however, would reject the choice as false. Instead, the best way to restore confidence in markets is to show that there is rule of law.  The best route to economic recovery was through rule of law, not away from it. ...

The Administration, however, determined that it wasn't going to rock the boat via prosecutions, even though there is no person in the banking system who is so indispensible to economic stability as to merit immunity from prosecution...