Study On The Judicial Application Of Drunken Dangerous Driving Crime

Since the "drunk driving penalty" in 2011,the number of cars has been increasing year by year,and drunk driving cases have also shown an explosive growth.The introduction of the Criminal Law Amendment(VIII)not only deepens the concept of "not driving after drinking" in people’s hearts,but also protects public legal interests from a legal perspective.In recent years,judicial authorities across the country have been increasing their efforts to crack down on such crimes,with the number of cases related to drunk dangerous driving accounting for over 95% of the total number of dangerous driving cases.Based on such a large number of case types,how to solve the existing controversial issues in the process of judicial determination is a problem that scholars and judicial authorities are actively exploring.Through the collection and analysis of cases of drunk dangerous driving crimes in various regions through the Judgment Document Network,as well as the summary of guidance methods on drunk dangerous driving crimes in various regions,it was found that there are difficulties in the specific judicial application process of minor drunk driving cases,lack of consideration of specific sentencing circumstances,and inconsistent sentencing in different regions;The identification of ’roads’ and’ motor vehicles’ is not standardized;The punishment method for the crime of drunk and dangerous driving is too restrictive;Issues such as the failure of the preventive and deterrent functions of punishment to fulfill their due value.At the same time,it was found that there are objective factors in the judicial application process of the current crime of drunk and dangerous driving that are not accurately determined,such as disputes over the determination of "excessive electric vehicles";There are defects in the application of the non prosecution system,and it is not possible to accurately apply the non prosecution system to minor drunk driving cases;There is uncertainty in the presumption of evidence rules;The trial process lacks balanced consideration,and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case is frequent.To address these issues,corresponding judicial identification improvement paths are proposed: by appropriately adjusting the entry and exit thresholds for the crime of drunk dangerous driving,increasing the application rate of probation,and relaxing the standard of discretionary non prosecution;Clarify the evidence rules for mild drunk driving cases;We will introduce a sound judicial interpretation,formulate unified sentencing standards nationwide and apply them in a standardized manner,so as to avoid "different sentences in the same case" to the maximum extent;When facing minor criminal offenses such as drunk driving,the People’s Procuratorate should accurately apply the non prosecution system,and the People’s Court should make reasonable judgments that are exempt from criminal punishment;Strengthen the seamless connection between criminal laws and administrative regulations,and fill judicial loopholes;Innovative governance methods for crime prevention and control,multi-dimensional resolution of the dilemma of difficult individual breakthroughs in punishment.