|
|
|
| Drunk-driving Governance from the Perspective of Misdemeanor Governance |
| Zheng Yinglong, He Dehui |
| Law School, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou310018, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Currently, the proportion of minor crime cases and the rate of light sentences in our country are steadily increasing. Faced with a large number of minor crime cases, the approach that focuses on punishing crimes while neglecting governance will lead to the overdraft of judicial resources and an increase in governance risks, among other social issues. How to achieve differentiated governance of minor and serious crimes and promote the rationalization and balance of crime and punishment has become a significant issue in the governance of crime in the new era. In the governance of minor crimes, drunk-driving governance is undoubtedly the most typical microcosm. Taking the perspective of minor crime governance can fundamentally provide new ideas for drunk-driving governance. Minor crime governance contains two levels of theory and practice, corresponding to the concepts of minor crime and minor case. Minor crime is a theoretical concept, using the statutory penalty as a standard, aiming at achieving the diversion of litigation procedures between minor and serious crimes and highlighting the governance orientation of “education as the main focus, punishment as a supplement, and prevention as the key” for minor crimes. Minor case is a practical concept, which refers to the overall need for lenient treatment of minor crime cases after a comprehensive evaluation of the objective dangerousness of the behavior, the subjectivity of the perpetrator, and the possibility of re-offending. The aim is to accurately implement the criminal policy of combining leniency and strictness and to prevent the erroneous practice of treating minor crimes uniformly leniently or punishing them excessively. “Minor crime→minor case” is the basic law and inevitable path from theory to practice in minor crime governance, which not only resolves the opposition between the statutory penalty theory and the intended penalty theory in the concept of minor crime but also provides a fundamental basis for the judicial adoption of a “violation→minor crime→minor case” full-process hierarchical filtering model in drunk-driving governance. The value of the hierarchical model of drunk-driving governance lies in its ability to more accurately implement the criminal policy of combining leniency and strictness, more appropriately handle the relationship between criminal law and administrative law, and more finely deal with illegal behaviors of different degrees. The first filtering of “violation→minor crime” in the hierarchical model of drunk-driving governance aims at distinguishing the broad sense of “drunk-driving violation” into administrative violations and criminal offenses for separate handling, and should adhere to strict investigation and the principle of legality in crime and punishment, ensuring that the crime is legally established and the exemption from crime is reasonable. It is neither allowed to recognize behaviors outside the semantic scope of the constitutive elements as crimes, nor to exclude circumstances of “obvious minor harm” in the crime of drunk-driving from the scope of crime according to the “but” provision of Article 13 of the Criminal Law. The second filtering of “minor crime→minor case” aims at distinguishing criminal offenses into minor cases and non-minor cases for separate handling, and should adhere to the principle of combining leniency and strictness. The key is to comprehensively evaluate the case’s severe and lenient circumstances in combination with social harm and the possibility of re-offending to achieve proportional punishment. In addition, the issue of drunk-driving governance is at the intersection of administrative law and criminal law, and it is necessary to properly handle the normative conflicts in responsibility pursuit, the concurrency of administrative and criminal responsibility, and the procedural connection between administrative enforcement and criminal justice, in order to achieve joint governance of administration and punishment in drunk-driving governance. However, to more thoroughly carry out drunk-driving governance, some root institutional issues still need to be resolved in legislation, such as the overly severe consequences of crime, and the lack of procedural pathways for minor crimes to be exempted from punishment, etc. For this, it is necessary to establish a system for the destruction of criminal records and a conditional non-prosecution system for minor crimes.
|
|
Received: 18 April 2024
|
|
|
|
1 习近平：《全面深入做好新时代政法各项工作促进社会公平正义 保障人民安居乐业》，《人民日报》2019年1月17日，第1、2版。
2 成功、刘树德：《轻罪时代的犯罪治理及其制度供给》，《人民法院报》2023年8月25日，第5版。
3 刘宇鹏：《“醉驾入刑”十年成效显著 治理酒驾醉驾任重道远》，《人民公安报·交通安全周刊》，2021年4月30日，第4版。
4 张军：《最高人民检察院工作报告——2020年5月25日在第十三届全国人民代表大会第三次会议上》，https：//www.spp.gov.cn/spp/gzbg/202006/t20200601_463798.shtml，2023年6月25日。
5 周强：《最高人民法院工作报告——2020年5月25日在第十三届全国人民代表大会第三次会议上》，http：//gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/e83007142dac8251d1e141641e5577.html，2023年6月25日。
6 周光权：《建议修改“醉驾”犯罪标准，有效减少社会对立面》，https：//www.tsinghua.edu.cn/info/1667/70437.htm，2023年6月25日。
7 解志勇、雷雨薇：《基于“醉驾刑”的“行政罚”之正当性反思与重构》，《比较法研究》2020年第6期，第54-75页。
8 周光权：《论刑事一体化视角的危险驾驶罪》，《政治与法律》2022年第1期，第14-30页。
9 张明楷：《刑法学》（第6版），北京：法律出版社，2021年。
10 周振想编著：《刑法学教程》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，1997年。
11 赵廷光：《量刑公正实证研究》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2005年。
12 王昭武：《法秩序统一性视野下违法判断的相对性》，《中外法学》2015年第1期，第170-197页。
13 习近平：《关于〈中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定〉的说明》，《求是》2014年第21期，第16-23页。
14 意］切萨雷·贝卡里亚：《论犯罪与刑罚》，黄风译，北京：中国方正出版社，2004年。
15 董静：《全国机动车保有量达4.17亿辆 驾驶人超过5亿人 新能源汽车保有量达1310万辆 同比增长67.13%》，https：//www.mps.gov.cn/n2254098/n4904352/c8837543/content.html，2023年7月10日。
16 储槐植、张永红：《善待社会危害性观念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起》，《法学研究》2002年第3期，第87-99页。
17 陈瑞华：《刑事诉讼法》，北京：北京大学出版社，2021年。
18 苗生明：《醉酒型危险驾驶的治罪与治理——兼论我国轻罪治理体系的完善》，《中国刑事法杂志》2024年第1期，第3-16页。
19 赵书鸿：《第五条 罪责刑相适应原则》，见冯军、梁根林、黎宏主编：《中国刑法评注》第1卷，北京：北京大学出版社，2023年，第60-75页。
20 高铭暄、马克昌主编：《刑法学》（第十版），北京：北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社，2022年。
21 冯军：《刑法中的责任原则：兼与张明楷教授商榷》，《中外法学》2012年第1期，第44-66页。
22 王敏远：《“醉驾”型危险驾驶罪综合治理的实证研究——以浙江省司法实践为研究样本》，《法学》2020年第3期，第109-123页。
23 龙宗智：《宽严相济政策相关问题新探》，《中国刑事法杂志》2011年第8期，第3-10页。
24 刘艳红、周佑勇：《行政刑法的一般理论》（第2版），北京：北京大学出版社，2020年。
25 张明楷：《避免将行政违法认定为刑事犯罪：理念、方法与路径》，《中国法学》2017年第4期，第37-56页。
26 曾赟：《中国监狱罪犯教育改造质量评估研究》，《中国法学》2013年第3期，第149-162页。
27 孙国祥：《新时代刑法发展的基本立场》，《法学家》2019年第6期，第1-14，191页。
28 房清侠：《前科消灭制度研究》，《法学研究》2001年第4期，第80-93页。
29 陈兴良：《轻罪治理的理论思考》，《中国刑事法杂志》2023年第3期，第3-18页。
30 陈瑞华：《轻罪案件附条件不起诉制度研究》，《现代法学》2023年第1期，第145-163页。
31 魏干：《醉驾案件社会公益服务评价机制的理论证成与实践路径——以“金东经验”为样本》，《中国检察官》2021年第18期，第36-40页。
32 印波、袁韬：《附条件不起诉在醉驾案件中的适用——基于十省份办理醉驾案件意见的分析》，《司法警官职业教育研究》2021年第4期，第45-53页。 |
| [1] |
. [J]. , 2006, 36(6): 34-. |
|
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
