According to reports, in May 10th, the Supreme People's court vice president vice secretary of the party, Zhang Jun in the national court criminal trial work of the forum pointed out, we must correctly grasp the dangerous driving crime constitution condition, should not only understand the criminal law amendment from the context (eight) regulations, as long as the standard to drunk driving a motor vehicle, it will constitute a criminal offense, to link up with the road traffic safety law revised. Although the "criminal law amendment (eight)" shall be investigated for criminal responsibility of drunk driving, not explicitly serious or serious condition, but according to the criminal law thirteenth stipulation principle, harm the social behavior plot remarkable slight harm is not great, not deemed a crime. In the way of drunken driving motor behavior needs to be investigated for criminal responsibility, should pay attention to connect with the administrative punishment, prevention can be based on the road traffic safety law of punishment, directly to the court shall be investigated for criminal responsibility.

   To tell the truth, vice president Zhang Jun has been my great respect, very loved, admired, and even worship is a good leadership, many of his speech, which shows the deep theory attainments, but also reflect the superb practical wisdom, very admirable. However, the above him about drunk driving case point of view, I feel can not agree.

   One of the reasons, the dangerous driving crime with serious or serious degree elements in constitution obviously not required. "Provisions of the criminal law amendment eight" added: "one of 133rd drive a motorized vehicle on the road racing, if the case is serious, or in the way of drunken driving motor, detention, and shall also be fined." This actually provides two types of behavior, the former a racing driver provides element "vile", driving after a drunk but no such elements limit. The legislative intent is very obvious, namely to drunk driving without the need for special circumstances or degree, as long as the "on the road", "drunk", "driving" the three conditions, namely the detention and fines. This is the establishment of the crime of dangerous driving on the general expectation of prevention. In the determination of the crime of dangerous driving arbitrarily increase the plot elements, not only violates the crime punishment legal principle type required security principle, and it is likely that the use of criminal law "severe law governing 'Drunk'" policy in vain.

   Two reasons, the dangerous driving crime is the concrete dangerous crime. In a drunken state, identification, reaction, ability to control people have declined significantly, highly realistic risk accident. As long as it is drunk, has this dangerous, can not be "plot remarkable slight".

   Three reasons, "the plot remarkable slight" no definite judgment standard. Can even say that there is no judgment standard. How drunk driving belongs to "the plot remarkable slight"? According to the alcohol content? Wrong. All above 80 can say is "significant" slight? According to whether the occurrence of harmful consequences? It is improper. That and the crime of traffic accident no difference. According to my understanding, article thirteenth of the criminal law act is one of the extreme cases of exceptions, can only be used cautiously in extreme cases, is wide and the. Otherwise, you should say "plot remarkable slight", all drunk driving can be said to be "the plot remarkable slight", if compared with the crime of causing traffic casualties. For drunk driving the social widespread public concern about the case, better not to mention "the plot remarkable slight", lest you too.

   Four reasons, the criminal treatment and drunken driving law administrative processing no contradiction. The detention of criminal detention, the revocation of license revocation, not what the conflict! The same behavior at the same time a different nature of the punishment, not to violate the "no reason" principle.

   Think carefully, vice president Zhang Jun than my wise more than 100 times, I think he must have thought. But, why did he put forward this view? Undoubtedly other considerations. For example, from the modesty of the criminal law to consider, on the face of the crime of dangerous driving too widely, the cruel side. As from the judicial efficiency considerations, drunk driving will be included in the criminal procedure, need investigation, prosecution, trial, execution, the already overburdened judicial resources and add extrusion, even if all the summary procedure, the number of large, the impact on judicial efficiency still can not be underestimated. Too many guys, where off is also a big problem, also want to consider the custody organ burden. However, whether based on what kind of consideration, the legislation is ultimately legislation, since it is not what is significant in violation of justice "evil law", the criminal law is so clear and unambiguous provisions were made, the court can do. The legislation "do", "The Sucker justice", not constitutional blessing, but also difficult to obtain legitimacy support.

   Of course, for some really plot is very light, and is documented evidence sufficient to show that the person extremely low risk cases, can constitute the crime of dangerous driving through probation, exempted from criminal punishment, flexible processing. But if you use "plot remarkable slight" to deny the crime itself, may fundamentally digestion between criminal law sets the crime of dangerous driving crime control and prevention function, like the the Yellow River earthquake sea breaching of the dike, thousands of miles, can not be copied.