On The Judicial Determination Of "Drunk" Dangerous Driving Crime

Nowadays,transportation plays an important role in our lives.However,the frequent occurrence of traffic accidents has also attracted the attention of the community and the behavior of drunk driving is endless.Since the "drunk driving behavior" was sentenced,the number the ’drunken’ dangerous driving crime has remained high."Drunk driving" has replaced the crime of theft and has become the"first major crime" in criminal prosecutions.At present,a "minor crime" such as the"drunk" dangerous driving crime occupies too much judicial resources,which is a huge loss for the country,society and individuals.The "drunk" dangerous driving crime has problems of the single judgment standard for drunkenness and unclear conviction standards in judicial application.The problem of inconsistent sentencing standards has led to different convictions in the same case.So it is indeed necessary to discuss the issue of judicial identification.For the determination of ’drunkenness’,both the breathing method and the blood drawing method have inherent defects.Referring to the European and American legal systems which introduce urine tests to improve the detection methods can make the determination of alcohol content more accurate;for the special cases circumstance"overnight drunkenness" cannot be determined solely based on the alcohol content in the blood.It should be determined in conjunction with deliberate mentality elements.The determination of "drunk" dangerous driving behaviors is in addition to the judgment of the displacement caused by the existence of the motor vehicle’s own power device,and it should also be made in conjunction with the driver’s subjective psychology of driving a motor vehicle.This standard can also better demonstrate that"moving a car in short distant" does not belong to drunk driving;The judgment of the vehicle of "drunk" dangerous driving behavior should not be simply based on the judgment of species.Instead,the vehicle should be defined as a "motor vehicle" based on its weight,maximum speed,tire width,and maximum output power of the electric motor;the core of the judgment of the "drunk" dangerous driving behavior area is the public nature of the road and whether the vehicle will bring real danger when passing through this section of the road;the "drunk" dangerous driving in addition to the determination of the guilt should be determined with a deliberate mentality,the behavior of "drinking on the spot" for the purpose of evasion and "disturbing the order" for the purpose of confusing judgment can be determined as the subjective and vicious aggravation.The above identification methods and judgment models have practical feasibility for solving the existing difficult problems in judicial practice.Some problems still exist in judicial practice,such as the unclear boundaries between administrative punishment and criminal punishment for the "drunk"dangerous driving,lack of applicable standards for probation and fines,and failure to comprehensively consider factors such as "driving speed" and "vehicle type".The content determines the severity of the penalty,and the maximum penalty is criminal detention,resulting in a single range of sentencing.The targeted countermeasures are proposed to overcome the above dilemma,such as to improve the connection between administrative violations and criminal crimes of "drunk" dangerous driving crime by uniformly identifying "significantly minor circumstances";"alcohol content" and"probation" Apply and fines apply to unify the sentencing standards;comprehensively consider the basic elements of "vehicle speed" and "vehicle type" to classify the sentencing scenarios in more detail;increase the sentencing range through more detailed division of criminal detention.