For the second year in a row, Zhu was anxious to tell Zhu that he opposed "drunk driving and imprisonment" for four reasons. First, the punishment effect of "drunk driving into punishment" is not obvious, and there are too many criminal cases; Second, the criminal record caused by drunk driving will make it difficult for criminals to return to society; Third, through the corresponding administrative punishment, it can also play the role of disciplinary education; The fourth is to control social ills such as drunk driving, and we cannot rely too much on severe punishment.
The reason why I oppose the abolition of drunk driving is that so many people are punished every year, standing on the opposite side of society and increasing the difficulty of social governance. It should not be a reason to raise the threshold of drunk driving or abolish drunk driving, otherwise it will be a bit "the law does not blame the public."
By analogy, if the number of criminals is too large, the threshold can be cancelled or raised, so should the "second biggest crime" theft also be cancelled or raised? Or according to the meaning of representative Zhu, we can also take the form of administrative punishment for governance?
On the one hand, the number of motor vehicles and drivers has increased rapidly, on the other hand, the investigation of drunk driving has become more and more strict. Moreover, in recent years, there are not a few experts and scholars who suggest raising the threshold of drunk driving.
I would like to ask, the threshold of imprisonment has been raised. Can a drunk driver who was sentenced before be exempted from imprisonment according to the later standards? What should be done for this group? Cancel the judgment and restore its due legal status? Is it fair to such a group?
Regarding the social problem that drunk drivers are difficult to integrate into society after being sentenced, Deputy Zhu put forward another proposal with more practical significance: refer to the system of sealing criminal records of minors, and establish a system of sealing criminal records of drunk driving to help criminals return to society.
It stands to reason that this is a good way to reduce the negative impact of drunk driving punishment. But I don't understand why the system of eliminating misdemeanor criminal record should be aimed at all criminals, but only at drunk driving. Is this fair to other juvenile offenders?
As far as I know, in recent years, there have been many misdemeanors, such as keeping parrots or turtles, cutting down their own forests, being implicated in working in companies, and many young people in their twenties have been sentenced to "helping the letter" for selling cards or "running away". Like drunk drivers, most of these groups are young and middle-aged people who have been punished for less than one year. When they are confused for a while, they will become eternal hatred. If drunk drivers can be banned, why can't such people be banned? It's really puzzling.
In my opinion, it may be the fairest for everyone, especially ordinary people, to unify the identification standards of drunk driving, adopt a "one size fits all" approach and adhere to the "numerical theory" of drunk driving. Instead of arguing about how to balance leniency with severity!
In fact, many drunk drivers also support drunk driving. After all, they and their families are also members of society, and they also hope that the road safety situation will get better and better.