Does drunk driving necessarily constitute the crime of endangering public safety in dangerous ways? No, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated is a crime. Under normal circumstances, they will be distinguished according to the specific degree of harm and the consequences of drunk driving, which may constitute the crime of dangerous driving, the crime of traffic accident, or the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods.
Among them, the crime of dangerous driving has the lightest penalty, but it is the easiest crime to commit. Drunk driving of a motor vehicle has met the criteria for conviction and carries a maximum sentence of six months in prison. Those who constitute the crime of traffic accidents shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; those who escape after the accident or have other particularly serious circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; if their escape causes death, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years. Those who constitute the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods without causing serious consequences shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; those who cause serious injury or death or cause heavy losses to public or private property shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or death. .
To what extent does the harm constitute the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means?
Generally, if a drunk driver stops the car during the first collision, he will not be punished for the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. Only those who continue to drive and crash after the accident, causing serious casualties, will be convicted and punished for the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. Although the law stipulates that drunken people are criminally responsible for committing crimes, stopping after an accident is different from the subjective malice of continuing to drive and crash after the accident, and is obviously more harmful to society. Moreover, the behavior of continuing collisions also shows that the perpetrators let the continuous harmful consequences go unchecked and had the intention to endanger public safety. Therefore, this kind of drunk driving behavior will be convicted of endangering public safety in dangerous ways.
Next let’s look at the “Tan Mingming Case”. In this case, Tan Mingming was driving drunk. After swiping 6 cars on the roadside, he collided with a car coming from the opposite direction and a car parked on the roadside. Unable to pass, he was forced to stop. When the car owner and the surrounding people came to dissuade him, he drove out forcibly and rear-ended the BMW that was waiting at the red light, causing the BMW to catch fire. Two people in the BMW were killed and one was seriously injured. Two people in Tan Mingming's car were seriously injured and one was seriously injured. Minor injuries.
As for the "Tan Mingming case", there is no problem in being convicted of the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. The contentious issue is sentencing. Why not impose the death penalty? Can spending money save your life? This is also where everyone has doubts. Next, let’s analyze the sentencing issue and see if Tan Mingming really saved his life because of money.
Before analyzing Tan Mingming’s sentencing, let’s first take a look at the Supreme Court’s opinions on such cases. The Supreme People's Court's "Opinions on the Application of Laws to the Crime of Drunk Driving" clearly states that, under normal circumstances, drunk driving constitutes this crime, and the perpetrator subjectively does not want or pursue the occurrence of harmful consequences, and it is an indirect intentional crime. The subjective malignancy of the behavior is different from the direct intentional crime of malicious driving into someone with the purpose of causing trouble and causing heavy casualties. So the decision on punishment should also be different. In addition, driving while drunk actually weakens the perpetrator's ability to identify and control, which should also be considered when sentencing. Then let’s take a look at the two gazetted cases of the Supreme Court, the “Li Jingquan Case” and the “Sun Weiming Case.”
On September 16, 2006, Li Jingquan drove a motor vehicle while drunk. He continued walking after bumping into Lee, who was riding a bicycle, and his son, who was riding a bicycle. After hitting the iron gate of the police box and the guard post next to it, he turned around again. Because the wheel got stuck in the flower field on the roadside, another victim, Liang Xiquan, and others stepped forward to rescue the injured and tried to dissuade Li Jingquan. Li Jingquan stepped on the accelerator and drove out of the flower field. After running over Li, he knocked down Liang Xiquan.
On February 7, 2007, the Foshan Intermediate People's Court sentenced him to death for the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means and deprived him of political rights for life. After the verdict was announced, Li Jingquan appealed. On September 17, 2008, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province ruled to reject the appeal, uphold the original judgment, and submit it to the Supreme People's Court for approval in accordance with the law. The Supreme People's Court held in a retrial that after the defendant Li Jingquan knocked down others while driving drunk, he continued to drive into the crowd, and his behavior constituted the crime of endangering public safety in dangerous ways. Li Jingquan hit people while driving drunk, causing two deaths and one minor injury. The circumstances of the crime are egregious and the consequences are particularly serious, and should be punished in accordance with the law. In view of the fact that Li Jingquan committed a crime while seriously drunk, it is an indirect intentional crime, which is different from the direct intentional crime of deliberately endangering public safety. Moreover, after he was brought to justice, he had a good attitude of pleading guilty and repenting, so he could not be sentenced to death according to law. The final ruling did not approve the death penalty for defendant Li Jingquan, revoked the ruling of the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court, and sent the case back to the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court for retrial. After mediation by the Guangdong Provincial High Court and Foshan Intermediate People's Court, Li Jingquan's relatives raised 6.54385 million yuan to compensate the injured party. On September 8, 2009, the Guangdong Provincial High Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and deprived him of political rights for life for the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means.
June 5438 February 65438 2008 In April, Sun Weiming, who had not obtained a driver's license, drove a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and rear-ended a BYD sedan. After the accident, Sun Weiming continued to speed. When he reached the "Zhuo Jincheng" section of Chenglong Road, he crossed the double solid yellow line in the middle and hit four cars that were traveling normally, killing four people and seriously injuring one. On July 22, 2009, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court sentenced Sun Weiming to death and deprived him of his political rights for life for the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means. After the verdict, Sun Weiming appealed. During the trial, the Sichuan Higher People's Court presided over mediation and reached a civil compensation agreement. Sun Weiming was later sentenced to life imprisonment for endangering public security by dangerous means and deprived of political rights for life.
Through the opinions of the Supreme Court and these two gazette cases, I believe everyone knows the attitude of the Supreme Court. At the same time, according to the requirements of the Supreme Court, if drunk driving allows harmful consequences to occur and causes heavy casualties, it shall be punished with the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods in accordance with the provisions of the "Opinions on the Applicable Law of the Crime of Drunk Driving" and with reference to the above two cases. Conviction and sentencing. In the "Li Jingquan case", two people died and one was slightly injured. Without receiving compensation or understanding, the Supreme Court ruled that Li Jingquan committed a crime while severely drunk and that it was an indirect intentional crime. He also had a good attitude of pleading guilty and repenting after being brought to justice, and did not approve his death penalty. In other words, in Tan Mingming's case, as long as Tan Mingming pleads guilty and repented after arriving at the case, even if Tan Mingming's family did not reach a civil settlement agreement with the victim, the possibility of the Supreme Court's approval after Tan Mingming was sentenced to death is slim. If we want to avoid a death penalty review by the Supreme Court, the most severe sentence can only be a suspended sentence. In this way, Tan Mingming's life can still be saved.
Now, I think everyone understands that it was not the Tan family’s money that allowed Tan Mingming to survive. Friends who think they can do whatever they want with money should wake up.
Of course, is money useful? Sure, and it works for all parties. In the "Tan Mingming case", life imprisonment is basically the basis. Although you can save your life, there is a reprieve of death in the middle (it is also a death sentence, but you can survive). For Tan Mingming, the difference between life imprisonment and suspended death may be two years. Because the death penalty was suspended and no intentional crime was committed during the suspended period, it was commuted to life imprisonment after the expiration of two years. Therefore, if the death penalty is suspended, unless Tan clearly does not want to live anymore, it would be difficult to intentionally commit a crime under that kind of supervision. Although the death penalty can basically be commuted to life after two years, there are still certain risks. Then the role of money came into play. A civil settlement agreement was reached, and Tan Mingming was sentenced to life imprisonment. Tan Mingming was insured and he served two years less in prison. For the victims and their families, being able to guarantee due compensation, especially the families of the injured, can be life-saving money. For the court and society, it can alleviate social conflicts and stabilize social relations. This is the role of money in this situation, and it only plays the appropriate role, not whatever you want!