According to reports, on the day of Zhang's accident, the public security organs detained him to 165438+ 10/0, and Zhang was released on bail pending trial. After examination, the procuratorial organ believed that Zhang drunk driving had violated the criminal law, but in view of his minor criminal circumstances, good attitude of pleading guilty and repentance, and his performance in completing public office, he made a decision not to prosecute. Ying Weixin said that this is a decision made by the procuratorate based on the functions of public prosecution and legal supervision, which is in line with the law.
Article 173 of China's Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that if the circumstances of the crime are minor and it is not necessary to be sentenced or exempted from punishment according to the provisions of the Criminal Law, the people's procuratorate may make a decision not to prosecute. So, does Zhang's behavior fall within the reasonable scope of non-prosecution? Pang Tao said that changing the past "one-size-fits-all" punishment method, keeping the general principle of cracking down on drunk driving unchanged, refining and standardizing the punishment standards in different situations, and unifying the law enforcement standards and standards of drunk driving by means of meeting minutes reached by the public security organs of the three places, which reflected the criminal justice policy of combining leniency with severity.
Chen Weidong said: "In criminal law, crime and punishment are two closely related and relatively independent conceptual systems. Not all acts that constitute a crime will be punished by punishment, so to consider the criminal responsibility of suspects, we must conform to the principle of adapting crime to punishment. There are many cases of exemption from punishment stipulated by law, and the decision not to prosecute is the specific application of these legal provisions. In the absence of clear restrictions on drunkenness and its circumstances in legal and judicial interpretations, this explanation in favor of the defendant is not beyond the scope of legal and judicial interpretations. "