Incrimination Standard Of Drunken Driving Type Of Dangerous Driving

On May 1,2017,the Supreme People's court made the sentencing guidance(two)on common crimes("trial execution")(hereinafter referred to as the" sentencing guidance(two)"),which clearly stipulates that the cases of drunken driving are not very harmful to the circumstances,and the crime is not punished;the circumstances of the crime are not required to be sentenced to punishment.A penal penalty may be exempted from criminal punishment.This stipulation has caused the hot discussion of the public.There is a view that the regulation is the loosening of the drunken driving case and the "drunken driving all the crime",and the view is that the drunken driving does not have to be convicted all the time.This stipulation only emphasizes and reiterates the provisions of the existing law.The author believes that this is the correction of the Supreme People's Court on the "alcohol content" theory of drunken driving in the past judicial practice,which is a revision of the standard of drunken driving.For more than seven years since the intoxication of drunken driving in the judicial practice,it has been identified as a crime by the standards prescribed by the drunken driving force.And why the Supreme People's court has amended the standard of incrimination for the drunken driving in the "sentencing guidance(two)".The reason is what and whether it is rational.This article is based on the "sentencing guidance(two)”as the breakthrough point,we study the crime of drunken driving.In addition to the introduction,the text of this article is divided into three parts.The first part of the article is a summary of the standard and judicial practice ofdrunken driving before the introduction of “sentencing guidelines(two)”.The first section of the "sentencing guidance(two)" before the introduction of the introduction of drunken driving standards,and analysis of the criminal theory and the judicial practice of drunken driving in the dispute,most of the point of view at that time inclined to drunken driving.The second section discusses the judicial application before the introduction of the “sentencing guidance(two)”.Through the related data analysis,it can be found that although the number of traffic accidents caused by drunken driving has declined,the amount of drunken driving cases in court trial is increasing year by year,which is to some extent dislike the limited judicial resources.And like the small social harmfulness,the person's subjective and minimal car cases,and the cases of drunken driving,the judicial personnel do not take these specific circumstances into consideration and only take the blood alcohol content of the actor as the sole criterion for the conviction and punishment not only bring the injustice of the case,but also make it difficult to convince the public.The second part of the article is the analysis of the reasons for the correction of the crime of drunken driving in sentencing guidance(two),and it is also the object of this article.The author believes that the provisions of the sentencing guidance(two)on the criteria for intoxication of drunken driving are the point of view to correct the intoxication of drunken driving and to standardize the uniform application of drunken driving cases with formal legal documents,in accordance with the principle of legality and the principle of modesty of criminal law.The first section states that the reason for its amendment conforms to the principle of legality.The essence of the principle of legality is to restrict the right of punishment and protect human rights,and the in foothold of the "proviso" clause is also the purpose of reducing the criminal circle,guaranteeing human rights and conforming to the principle of legality,and the clause of the "proviso" as the general rule of criminal law should be applicable to punishment.The specific accusation of the law is also applicable to drunken driving.The second section discusses the reasons for its amendment in accordance with the modesty principle of the criminal law.The modesty of the criminal law requires that the criminal law should not be intervened when some other legal means can be usedto effectively regulate some kind of behavior.Therefore,the administrative punishment is sufficient to regulate the drunken driving behavior which is significantly minor in the plot without any further conviction and punishment.The third section deals with the amendment of the "sentencing guidance(two)" to the existing judicial practice.Since the intoxication of drunken driving,it has experienced several stages.The public security and procuratorial organs think that the drunken driving should be convicted,but the Supreme People's court thinks that the drunken driving does not have to be convicted,which leads to the different operation of the judicial practice,some local courts have clearly defined the inconvictions that are slightly less harmful to the drunken driving circumstances,while some local courts do not stipulate it,and the provisions of the sentencing guidance(two)are the unification of the specific operational standards for judicial practice.And there are so many dangerous driving offenders every year.After they have returned to the society after they have served their sentences,it is not good for them to reintegrate themselves into society,but also to the harmony and stability of the whole society.The Supreme People's court should also take into account this practical problem to improve the incrimination standard of drunken driving.The third part of the article is the author's conception of the implementation of "sentencing guidance(two)" in the judicature.This chapter mainly discusses the specific cognizance of drunken driving cases,such as "slight and slight damage to the plot" and "mild circumstances",and properly identifies the connection with administrative penalties after making the above cognizance of drunken driving cases.The article thinks,"sentencing guidance(two)" correction of drunken driving conviction standard is reasonable,the judge in the specific trial of drunken driving case,after considering the case if it conforms to the circumstances are obviously minor and the harm is not great circumstances should not be punished,but should be cautious for the proviso,the most critical is in the judgment of conviction and punishment for not cleaning,rather than simply with a pen.Unfortunately,the sentencing guidelines(two)did not make specific provisions for drunken driving's "slight and slight damage to plot" and "mild plot",hoping that the Supreme People'scourt can formulate specific criteria soon.