That's well said, but except for the last sentence are you sure it's true? Corzine's conduct, whether criminal or not, certainly has more immediate impact, but may still pale in comparison to the economic destruction of widespread riots if such occur from the Martin killing. Also, Corzine's conduct didn't actually destroy any wealth, it merely (legally or otherwise) transferred other people's wealth to Corzine and his cronies. That is true to a degree with riots, but there's also a great deal of destruction and often loss of life.
Also, Martin's killing and the apparent lack of prosecution on its surface indicates a continuance of a horrible thing in our country's past, unequal justice based on race. This indication may well be false, but if it turns out to be true I could argue that this is more destructive to our society than is Corzine's conduct. As it stands, we've had a definite chill in race relations. Plus, Martin's death in and of itself is a diminishing of our society; it guts the lives of his family, all the people who loved him, all the people who would have loved him. I think most people would agree it's better to lose your money than to lose your child. To me that isn't even close. (Although since I've lost a child and I don't have much money to lose it's possible I'm not a good example. LOL)
I'm not necessarily arguing that Martin's killing has a greater impact on society than does Corzine's money, but I do think it's entirely possible. Depending on how this plays out it might not even be close.