Justice For Drunk Driving Crime Difficulties And Countermeasures

Since the crime of dangerous driving entered the eighth amendment of the criminal law in 2011,it has not only facilitated people's life,but also protected people's livelihood from the legal level,so as to minimize the unnecessary impact of driving cars on the masses.Judicial organs all over the country have increased their efforts to crack down on such crimes,and the number of trials of dangerous driving crime shows an exponential growth trend,in which the judgment of drunk dangerous driving crime accounts for more than 95% of dangerous driving crime.With such a large number of cases,how to accurately and evenly measure the penalty is a problem that the national courts(including the grass-roots courts)are actively exploring,which has greatly curbed the behavior of drunk driving.However,there are still some problems such as the difficulty of committing a crime in a slight drunk driving case and the careless consideration of the circumstances of sentencing.The function of prevention and deterrence of punishment fails to play its due value.The paper is divided into five parts.The first part is the introduction,which introduces the research background and significance of drunk dangerous driving crime,as well as the research status at home and abroad.The domestic research mainly sums up the basis of entering crime and whether the standard of entering crime is accurate and feasible,whether the subjective responsibility is fault or intentional,and whether the crime is committed.The foreign research mainly focuses on the scholars involved in drunk driving crime in the UK,the US,Germany and Japan.The second part is the status quo of trial of drunk driving dangerous driving crime,and the problems existing in the judicial process are analyzed through empirical analysis.After analyzing the existing data,the following conclusions are obtained: the defendants are mainly young and middle-aged men,and most of them are not highly educated;the use of probation is relatively high in sentencing,fewer people are exempted from punishment,and the length of sentence Positively correlated with the alcohol content in the defendant's blood.The third part summarizes the dilemma of drunk driving behaviors.First,the specific measures for convicting minor drunk driving cases are unclear;second,the rules of evidenceare unclear;only the blood alcohol content test is used as the only evidence;and the defendant is not allowed to disprove evidence;third,the factors in each court's sentencing circumstances are inconsistent.The mechanized handling of drunk driving dangerous crime cases will eventually lead to different results in the same case.Finally,the single type of sentencing that can be chosen,the imbalance of sentencing,and the limited effect of the actual penalty are the results of the combination of judgments.The fourth part analyzes the reasons for the problems in judicial practice.First,there is always the idea that punishment is the main and prevention is the second;the second is that too simple legal requirements are difficult to accurately grasp;the third is that the sentencing situation is not considered properly during the trial;the fourth is that poor supervision and insufficient joint defense and defense also lead to inadequate sentencing A big reason for both.The fifth part combines the analysis of the above four parts,and proposes the solution to the crime of drunk driving.First,to improve the guilty path of minor drunk driving cases and implement the policy of leniency and strictness;second,to determine the evidence rules for drunk driving dangerous driving crimes should be based on probative power,and in the case of a solitary permit,the defendant should be allowed Contradictory evidence.Third,establish uniform sentencing standards and standardize case handling procedures.Fourth,strengthen coordination and coordination,and coordinate planning among multiple departments.