Since the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, auditors have had civil and criminal liability and are required to take personal responsibility for financial statements. Critics of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act do not believe the act will be effective at deterring accounting frauds because it primarily relies on specifying new crimes and higher penalties (e.g., increased maximum fines and prison terms). Critics argue that if corporate executives are not deterred by the prospect of 5 or 10 years in prison (which existed pre-Sarbanes-Oxley), the threat of imprisonment will have little or no practical effect no matter what the maximum is raised to. Thus, critics conclude that the act was more an expression of political outrage than good policy.

Proponents of the act believe the new crimes, increased penalties, and the other provisions in the act will be effective at significantly reducing corporate accounting fraud.

Providean opinion concerning the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and support your thoughts with at least one scholarly source.