On December 18, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued opinions on handling criminal cases of drunk dangerous driving (hereinafter).The opinion will be implemented from December 28, 2023.The biggest change by the public is that the opinion is clear that the plot of drunk driving is slight, and may not be prosecuted or convicted. If the circumstances are significantly mild and harmful, you can not treat it as a crime.Essence
This provision has aroused heated discussion among netizens, and has been implemented for 13 years of "drunk driving". Is it going to be canceled?Even individual netizens believe that such a "relaxation treatment" may leave the rear window procedure for officials in the future?
On the evening of July 31, 2022, the Jingkou Brigade of Zhenjiang City Traffic Police Detachment in Jiangsu Province and the Jingkou Branch patrolled the special police brigade to carry out night inspection operations.Wan Lingyun/Surging Image Information Map
In fact, this opinion determines the criteria of crimes in accordance with the dual model of "blood wine content+plot", and uniformly and regulate the standards for files, prosecution, probation, fines, and administrative penalties.In layman's speaking, the opinion continues the currently applicable blood alcohol content of 80 mg/100 ml. At the same time, if it is less than 150 mg/100 ml, it can be included in the "significant minor and harm".Provisions such as prosecution, conviction are exempted; and then more than 180 mg/100 ml are included in the case where the probation is generally not applicable.
In other words, the new opinions drawn three red lines of 80, 150, and 180 mg, and the dual model of "blood wine content+plot" is applied -not rigorous can be summarized as more than 80 mg, which can be filed with a case for filing the case.It is less than 150 mg, which can not be prosecuted. It is generally not probably more than 180 mg -has changed the standard that was commonly known as "more than 80 mg of drunk driving".
Why do you amend the "more than 80 mg of drunk driving"?
Before drunk driving in 2010, drunk driving was just an ordinary administrative violation, and only administrative penalties for detention and revoking driving licenses were applied.This means that as long as drunk driving was not killed or injured, it would be difficult to constitute a crime.As a result, a series of painful drunk driving cases such as the "Sun Weiming case" occurred.In 2010, the criminal law was officially revised, and this loophole was supplemented. Drunk driving was officially sentenced as a dangerous prisoner. It no longer needs serious consequences of injury. As long as it is drunk driving, it can constitute a crime.And in order to play a better player role at that time, it was more emphasized during the publicity.
However, after 13 years of implementation, the law has also occurred in some new problems.
On the one hand, drunk driving has replaced the crime of theft and has become the "largest crime."The crime of "drunk driving model" accounts for about 1/3 of all criminal cases, and more than 300,000 people are sentenced every year.Therefore, before Zhou Guangquan and other jurists and lawyers have proposed "drunk drunk driving to let 300,000 people enter jail every year", seriously occupy judicial resources, and it is recommended to make refined changes.
On the other hand, "All sins" also encountered many complex situations. To make more detailed rules, we cannot cut it again.For example, drunkenly stopped the car in the community; some patients in the family had to be rushed to the hospital urgently and had to drive when they were drunk. Are these guilty?It seems that "all crimes" contrary to the principle of fairness.
Zhejiang and other places have been patching before, and this new judicial policy issued by the two highs and two parts has been upgraded in all aspects and detailed the implementation standards.
In the case of the drunk driving that everyone is most concerned about, Article 12 of this opinion stipulates that: (2) driving motor vehicles for emergency situations such as first -aid and injured persons, and does not constitute an emergency avoidance;(3) In the residential area, parking lots and other places, driving motor vehicles due to short -distance driving vehicles, parking entry and other places; (4) Drive from others to residential communities, parking lots, etc.In order to drive by others, it is a short distance from residential communities, parking lots and other places, etc., and can be applied to the requirements of width treatment regulations for non -prosecution, which are targeted and detailed policies.
It is important to emphasize that the opinions are not all from drunk driving, but reflect the characteristics of wide strictness and accurate judicial justice.The opinions are determined in accordance with the specific standards of width and strictness in accordance with the model of "dangerous driving behavior after drinking dangerous driving+drunk level+no plot".The case of being seized or under administrative punishment is not applicable to probation.These strict regulations fill the blank points of the previous judicial policies, which will help unify the judicial judgment standards and achieve the same case and judge.
At present, for the "first crime" of drunk driving, after 13 years of law enforcement, it has upgraded and applied to more accurate judicial tailoring standards, introducing the dual model of "blood alcohol content+plot"And the attitude of seeking truth from facts.
However, I also hope that the judicial organs can see the public's anxiety, from the previous "80 mg of fixing the case or even the crime", to the current "less than 150 mg, it can not be prosecuted", the specific cases have more relaxed cases.Treatment and tailoring space, who can enjoy the dividend of this precise judicial justice?Will it become a certain privilege?
Therefore, more fine judicial policies require more sunny and more transparent law enforcement procedures to protect their fairness. In this regard, judicial organs must make greater efforts.The public is not obsessed with the result of "all crimes", and what is required to enforce the law enforcement process of "equality of everyone".
