Research On The Dilemma Of Drunken Dangerous Driving Crime And Its Path

The crime of drunk dangerous driving has been implemented for ten years since it was written into the "Criminal Law Amendment(8)" in 2011.Ten years ago,the rationality of the penalty for drunk driving was still controversial.Now this crime has become the number one crime in the total number of cases in China’s criminal law.The creation of this crime has a great relationship with a major drunk driving accident in a specific period,and it is deeply influenced by public opinion and public opinion.At the beginning of the implementation of this crime,the Ministry of Public Security and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate consistently adhered to the concept of “all drunk driving shall be guilty”,and carried out a comprehensive campaign to strictly investigate and severely crack down on drunk driving and drunk driving.Sufficient cases are reviewed and prosecuted,which greatly prevents the occurrence of drunk driving.At the same time,"drinking and not driving" has increasingly become a conscious behavior of the people,and a broad consensus has been formed in the whole society.Behind the severe crackdown on drunk driving is the large-scale investment in judicial resources and social costs.Through the compilation and analysis of judicial practice data over the past ten years,it is found that the total number of crime cases at the macro level is still rising and staying high year by year,and the crime rate has continued to rise.Trends,there is also a phenomenon of imbalance in sentencing among various regions.At the micro level,after consulting a large number of judgment documents,it is found that in the course of judicial practice,there are administrative and formal identification of the constituent elements of this crime,and the status quo of ignoring subjective identification.Through the summary of the above data and cases,this article believes that the combined effect of the improper expansion of the crime circle and the obstruction of the criminal path has made the total number of crime cases too large;the lack of statutory penalty allocation in the punishment system and the lack of penalty education functions are the cause of the crime.The important factor that the rate does not drop year by year;the lack of clear and unified sentencing standards is the main reason for the imbalance in sentencing between different regions.During the period,through the study of the three-level standard for drunk driving in the United States and the “zero tolerance” system for drunk driving among young people,the unified and unified legislative model of drunk driving in Japan and the road traffic safety training and education system,and the double drunk standards of “absolute driving impossibility” and “relative driving impossibility” in Germany,Look for something worthy of reference for our country.Combining the current status of drunk driving control and judicial practice,this article proposes to appropriately narrow the scope of road identification,supplement differentiated drunkenness standards,and exclude excessive electric bicycles in a "grey zone" from the concept of motor vehicles.The scope of the regulation is reduced,by clarifying that the subjective aspect of the crime is intentional,so as to facilitate the judiciary to determine the guilt and carefully consider the application of the "province" clauses for special cases to open up the path of crime.The problem of excessively large number of crime cases;improve the punishment system of this crime by appropriately increasing the statutory penalty to enhance the deterrence of the penalty and effectively exert the function of penalty education,so as to suppress the continued increase in the crime rate;through the refinement of sentencing norms in the form of judicial interpretation So as to solve the difficulty of imbalance in sentencing between regions.It is hoped that the above suggestions can strengthen the prevention mechanism for drunken dangerous driving crimes,further protect domestic road traffic safety,effectively reduce the excessive occupation of judicial resources under the premise of ensuring fairness and justice,and contribute to the process of legal construction in China.