????從2001年開始，通用汽車公司（General Motors）上百萬輛汽車上的點(diǎn)火開關(guān)缺陷已導(dǎo)致至少13起致命車禍。針對通用汽車對這個缺陷長期不作為的情況，美國交通部（Department of Transportation）已經(jīng)對它開出了3500萬美元的罰單，而司法部（Department of Justice）可能會開出更大的罰單。由于這個缺陷導(dǎo)致人們死于非命，美國政府是否能以謀殺罪對通用汽車提出指控呢？答案是否定的。但可行的是——盡管不太可能——美國政府可以過失殺人罪起訴這家公司。而由于2009年采取的救助行動，政府直到去年還在這家公司持有一定股份。

????近幾年來，所謂“人格化公司”（corporate personhood）這種說法經(jīng)常見諸報(bào)端。2012年，米特?羅姆尼在愛荷華州展覽會上向公民聯(lián)合自治大會（Citizens United Ruling）拋出了那句臭名遠(yuǎn)揚(yáng)的“朋友們，公司也是人啊”；而美國最高法院也在當(dāng)時(shí)宣布，在為了選舉而捐款時(shí)，公司實(shí)際上就是人。自此以后，這就成了大家熱議的話題。

????紐約大學(xué)法學(xué)院（New York University Law School）專攻公司犯罪的詹妮弗?阿倫教授表示，這個道理也適用于車禍致死案。不過這種情況很罕見，處理起來也頗為困難。

????她說：“公司也可被控殺人，罪名通常是過失殺人，”不過這種情況很少見，因?yàn)椤昂苌儆性斐赡欠N結(jié)果的情形發(fā)生。”

????（司法部發(fā)言人拒絕就對通用汽車的調(diào)查發(fā)表評論。他表示，首席檢察官埃里克?霍爾德已經(jīng)拒絕證實(shí)正在開展此項(xiàng)調(diào)查。）

????阿倫稱，對一家被控過失殺人的公司來說，必須滿足幾個條件罪名才能成立。首先，檢察官必須能找到一個特定的人，正是他的某些行為導(dǎo)致被害人死亡。其次，此人必須是為了公司的利益、而且是在他被雇傭期間采取了這些行動，且在采取行動時(shí)，他“心智狀態(tài)正?！?。

????比如，阿倫稱，如果一個郵政員工走進(jìn)一家郵局并開槍打死了一名無辜旁觀者，他并不是“為了公司的利益”而這么做。所以，即便是這一犯罪行為是在郵局發(fā)生，且行兇者就是郵局員工，但郵局也不會被控殺人罪，因?yàn)閮捶覆⒉皇窃诖砉咀鲞@種事。

????不過阿倫認(rèn)為，對通用汽車這個案例來說，如果發(fā)現(xiàn)有人在知道不召回就會致人死命的情況下還沒有發(fā)起召回——阿倫一再強(qiáng)調(diào)她并不知道是不是真的存在這種情況——那通用汽車就很有可能因過失殺人罪遭到指控。

????Cozen O’Connor律所的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任律師吉姆?海勒稱，指控通用汽車犯有過失殺人罪恐怕并不是個太有效的策略。

????他說：“這個案子可能在民事訴訟范圍里處理比較好?！彼硎?，“司法部正面臨很大壓力，他們必須不僅行動果決，還要措施有力”。他預(yù)計(jì)盡管不太會提起刑事訴訟，但通用汽車仍然將面臨巨額罰金。

????阿倫特別指出，一般來說，在處理刑事犯罪行為時(shí)，司法部并不會像對待一般自然人那樣對待公司。

????她說：“盡管公司是所謂的法人，但這實(shí)際上只是一種法律上的虛擬規(guī)定?！?999年，時(shí)任副總檢察長的霍爾德撰寫了一個備忘錄稱，政府更傾向于讓個人、而不是其所在公司對犯罪行為負(fù)責(zé)。政府認(rèn)為，在讓公司自行上報(bào)問題并與監(jiān)管部門配合這個問題上，公司責(zé)任才是更有效的手段。如果自行上報(bào)會導(dǎo)致以過失殺人定罪，那公司恐怕就不太可能積極配合了。

????由前任美國檢察官安東?瓦盧卡斯發(fā)布的報(bào)告稱，沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)通用汽車在這起事件中存在陰謀或有意隱瞞的情況。不過阿倫對任何公司開展自查的報(bào)告都抱懷疑態(tài)度。此外她還稱，公司高管層可能采取的刻意隱瞞行為并不是可能發(fā)生過失殺人案的唯一相關(guān)因素。如果公司里某些層級較低的人知道點(diǎn)火開關(guān)存在缺陷，同時(shí)也有能力采取行動制止這批車下線，但卻決定“為了公司的利益讓這些車上路”，那也可以對公司提出過失殺人的指控。

????而瓦盧卡斯的報(bào)告還稱，沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)有通用汽車的員工為了利益而罔顧安全。

????不過值得指出的是，確實(shí)有一樁公司被控過失殺人的著名案例。2013年，英國石油公司（BP）就與2010年“深水地平線號”（Deepwater Horizon）鉆井平臺爆炸相關(guān)的11樁嚴(yán)重過失殺人指控認(rèn)罪。這家公司同時(shí)被控犯有其他罪行，最后因刑事?lián)p害被罰了12.5億美元。所以，就算通用汽車公司真的被判有罪，瑪麗?巴拉和其他高管也不用擔(dān)心坐牢。

????不管怎么說，通用汽車可能會因?yàn)辄c(diǎn)火開關(guān)缺陷導(dǎo)致13人死亡而吃官司。但是大家也不用期待什么天大的消息。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：清遠(yuǎn)

????A defective ignition switch in millions of General Motors’ GM -0.68% cars has led to at least 13 deaths since 2001. The Department of Transportation has fined the automaker $35 million for inaction regarding the switches, and the Department of Justice may impose an even bigger fine on the automaker. Given that people died as a result of the defect, could the U.S. government opt to charge GM with murder too?

????No. However, it is feasible — though unlikely — that the Detroit company could be charged with manslaughter by the very same government that, until just last year, owned a equity in it as a result of the 2009 government bailout.

????The idea of “corporate personhood” has been in the news repeatedly in the past few years. Between Mitt Romney’s infamous “Corporations are people, my friend” moment at the 2012 Iowa State Fair to the Citizens United ruling, where the U.S. Supreme Court declared that for the purpose of electoral donations, corporations are in fact people, it has been a hotly debated topic.

????That logic can be extended into homicide cases, said Jennifer Arlen, a professor at New York University Law School who specializes in corporate crimes. It is difficult and rare, though.

????“A corporation can be charged with homicide, usually manslaughter,” she said. It doesn’t happen very often, though, because “it’s very rare that the circumstances wrist that you can do that.”

????(A spokesman for the Department of Justice declined to comment about any investigations of GM, saying that Attorney General Eric Holder has already refused to confirm than an investigation is ongoing.)

????For a company to be charged with manslaughter, Arlen said, a few things have to happen. First, prosecutors would have to be able to find a specific person whose actions led to people dying. Second, that person would have to have taken those actions for the benefit of the company and within the scope of their employment, and have been “in the right mental state” when they took the actions.

????For instance, Arlen said, if a postal employee walks into a post office and shoots innocent bystanders, they are not acting “on behalf of the company.” So, even though it happened in a post office and was committed by a postal employee, the post office would not be guilty of homicide because the shooter was not acting on behalf of the company.

????In GM’s case, though, Arlen thinks it’s feasible that if a person was found who didn’t institute a recall knowing that by not doing so that person could cause people to die — something she stressed she does not know to be the case — GM would potentially be a candidate for manslaughter prosecution.

????Jim Heller, a product liability attorney with Cozen O’Connor, said that charging GM with manslaughter would not be a particularly effective strategy.

????“This is probably better handled in the civil lawsuits,” he said. Heller said that there is “a lot of pressure on the DOJ to act not only [swiftly] but forcefully.” He expects that though no criminal charges will be filed, the fines sill be significant.

????Generally, the Department of Justice has not taken the route of treating corporations as people when it comes to criminal conduct, Arlen noted.

????“Although firms are legally people, this is actually a legal fiction,” she said. In 1999 then-Deputy Attorney General Holder wrote a memo stating that it is the preference of the government to hold individuals responsible for crimes, not the companies they work for. Corporate liability is considered more useful as a means to get companies to self-report problems and work with regulators. If self-reporting could lead to manslaughter convictions, companies would be way less likely to take part.

????The report issued on Thursday by former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas found that there was no conspiracy or attempt to cover up information. Arlen, though, was skeptical of any report commissioned by a company to investigate itself. Furthermore, she said that a potential cover-up by executives was not the only relevant thing to a potential manslaughter case. Manslaughter could also be charged if someone lower in the firm’s hierarchy knew about the ignition switches, and could have done something to stop them, but instead decided “to let the cars stay on the road for the benefit of the firm.”

????Valukas’ report also found that no GM employee prioritized profit over safety.

????Still, it’s worth noting that there is one notable case of a corporation being charged with manslaughter. In 2013, BP pled guilty to 11 counts of felony manslaughter in connection to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. BP was charged with other crimes as well, and it paid $1.25 billion in criminal damages. So even if GM is convicted of homicide, Mary Barra and other senior executives don’t have to worry about doing time.

????So yes, GM could be charged in the 13 deaths tied to faulty ignition switches. But don’t hold your breath.