Because institutions are not individuals. They do not possess a conscience, morality, or any other humane emotion that makes leniency possible and produce favourable outcomes.

You don't need to consider conscience and morality to implement harsher punishments for hiding evidence or not making things right after being informed vs. more lenient punishments when the individual or organization has shown to proactively attempted to remedy the situation and has taken actions to prevent it from happening again. It's all about making sure that the incentives are aligned with good behavior, even after initial bad behavior.

If you threaten to throw the CEO/President/Chairperson in jail the vast majority of organizations suddenly start acting like individuals.

Large systems are more than the sum of their parts, but not nearly as much as those parts want you to believe.

is an institution not a group of people as well? People with consciences, moralities and other human emotions?

If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda.

Really curious, not trying to construct a strawman!

> is an institution not a group of people as well? People with consciences, moralities and other human emotions?

Yes, but the point being made is that in the case of organizations the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts.

> If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda.

Not sure what you mean by this. Difference from what to any other organization and why that relevant?

You find immoral, illegal, etc. activity in institutions/organizations across a broad spectrum of areas.

> the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts.

This is because the "constituent parts" - members of the organization - are often just terrible human beings that hide behind the concept of an institution to shield themselves from the cognitive dissonance caused by their own unethical actions.

If an institution does something unethical it can always be traced to its employees.

As an example, all the researchers involved in promoting this fake health product ought to be fired and academically blackballed. It really is that simple. That's how we can deal with institutional rot.

The institution gives them money, thus they defend the institution.

Difference in the parameters. If immoral activity suddenly isn't immoral or rather "okay" if executed by an "institution" how can a (so called) "terror Group" be judged differently? Why are they responsible for the institutional actions while other institutions (or the people behind them) are not?