Poll: Should GM employees be jailed over faulty ignition switches?

[The Tradition]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) says General Motors employees should be jailed for allegedly covering up a dangerous ignition switch flaw in cars that were subject to a high-profile recall in 2014.

“You bet they do,” he said when was asked in CNBC's GOP presidential debate Wednesday about whether GM officials should be prosecuted.

“If I were the prosecutor, that’s exactly where they would be,” the 2016 contender continued, referring to prison.

Critics have complained a $900 million settlement that was reached between General Motors and the Department of Justice over the recalls did not include criminal charges for high-ranking former GM executives.
Justice Department officials announced in September that GM agreed to pay fines in exchange for deferring prosecution on criminal charges related to allegations the company covered up problems with its cars for years before the ignition switch recall was issued in 2014.

Christie, who is a former U.S. attorney, said in the debate on Wednesday that the decision to defer prosecution for GM officials is evidence of biased treatment under President Obama's Justice Department.

“This Justice Department under this president has been a political Justice Department,” he said. “It’s been a Justice Department that’s decided they want to pick who the winners and losers are. They like General Motors, so they give them a pass.”

http://thehill.com/policy/transport...hould-be-jailed-over-faulty-ignition-switches

 

[22*43*51]

To big to jail...

 

[The Tradition]

Sorry for the botched headline. Is it not possible to edit the thread title?

 

[22*43*51]

Sorry for the botched headline. Is it not possible to edit the thread title?

Not possible.

You must live with our snickering judgment of you.

 

[cigaretteman]

Sorry for the botched headline. Is it not possible to edit the thread title?

Yes, go up and click on the little wrench icon in the upper right hand corner of the post.

 

[The Tradition]

Thanks, cigaretteman!

Mock away, 22*43*51!

 

[The Tradition]

26 views and only FIVE votes?

C'mon, people, at least vote "present" if you view.

 

[Joes Place]

26 views and only FIVE votes?

C'mon, people, at least vote "present" if you view.

What 'law' did they potentially or specifically violate?

Is there a specific standard they were supposed to test to/against that they falsified the information or failed to run a required test? In that case, yes, there may be cause to prosecute/jail them; generally, you don't 'jail' the low-level folks, you hold the management accountable.

If not, I'm not sure how you can set a precedent for 'jailing' someone when no law was broken, just because something inappropriate was done.

 

[The Tradition]

What 'law' did they potentially or specifically violate?

Is there a specific standard they were supposed to test to/against that they falsified the information or failed to run a required test? In that case, yes, there may be cause to prosecute/jail them; generally, you don't 'jail' the low-level folks, you hold the management accountable.

If not, I'm not sure how you can set a precedent for 'jailing' someone when no law was broken, just because something inappropriate was done.

Then please vote "no." Thank you.

 

[Joes Place]

Then please vote "no." Thank you.

You cannot vote yes/no unless it is clear as to whether any law was broken.

If they did break a law, then yes, some of them should probably be held accountable for it. If there was no law broken, then this is a civil suit and none of the engineers or managers will hold any direct responsibility.

 

[The Tradition]

You cannot vote yes/no unless it is clear as to whether any law was broken.

If they did break a law, then yes, some of them should probably be held accountable for it. If there was no law broken, then this is a civil suit and none of the engineers or managers will hold any direct responsibility.

Then please vote "Present." Thank you.

 

[Joes Place]

Then please vote "Present." Thank you.

Perhaps your poll should instead be asking:

Should there be minimum safety standards/risk management standards that all manufacturers of automobiles who sell cars in the US must meet?

This doesn't mean ANY engineering flaw leads to criminal prosecution; only ones where specific risk management/FMEA processes were not followed properly. In the GM case, testing was skipped which would have shown the ignition switch was prone to failure; but someone made that change w/o reviewing and re-evaluating the documentation, all to save <$1 on a part.

This type of risk management is required in other industries, which also require maintaining documentation that demonstrates the requirements are met. Failure to follow the requirements, leading to injuries, etc. means the execs in those companies can be held liable for criminal prosecution. They only get an 'out' if someone lower down demonstrably falsified the information.

To my knowledge, this type of legislation does not exist for auto manufacturers, although some still do utilize many, if not most, FMEA techniques to reduce the risks of things like this from becoming product recalls...

 

[Joes Place]

FWIW...this is why many industries have 'standards' for components or devices.

For instance, many military contract specs call out a particular MIL-SPEC standard that a part needs to conform to. Any manufacturer who wants to sell to the military needs to have their part/component comply with the MIL-SPEC standard. If a manufacturer were to cut corners and 'fake' the data, or sell the part to the military WITHOUT data to demonstrate compliance to the spec, that is prosecutable fraud on the part of the company. And execs in that company could go to jail. Or, lower level folks to faked the data could.

From what I am aware, there ARE some of these specs for the auto industry, for things like seatbelts, etc. But I have no idea if there is a general 'risk management' requirement for swapping parts like an ignition switch out. If the original switch was tested to an internal spec, and them someone swapped for a cheaper part WITHOUT repeating that testing, that is engineering incompetence, but it's not necessarily 'illegal'. It would get you hammered in a courtroom/civil trial, but would not necessarily be a criminal case.

 

[The Tradition]

Perhaps your poll should instead be asking:

Should there be minimum safety standards/risk management standards that all manufacturers of automobiles who sell cars in the US must meet?

This doesn't mean ANY engineering flaw leads to criminal prosecution; only ones where specific risk management/FMEA processes were not followed properly. In the GM case, testing was skipped which would have shown the ignition switch was prone to failure; but someone made that change w/o reviewing and re-evaluating the documentation, all to save <$1 on a part.

This type of risk management is required in other industries, which also require maintaining documentation that demonstrates the requirements are met. Failure to follow the requirements, leading to injuries, etc. means the execs in those companies can be held liable for criminal prosecution. They only get an 'out' if someone lower down demonstrably falsified the information.

To my knowledge, this type of legislation does not exist for auto manufacturers, although some still do utilize many, if not most, FMEA techniques to reduce the risks of things like this from becoming product recalls...

Then start another poll. Thank you.