| 英文摘要 |
Since legislation of the unsafe driving offence enacted in 1999 and penal populism has become criminal policy for the past few years, the article indicates that whether it is unfair for a parolee who committed an unsafe driving offence in the parole? Whether enforcement density and penalty size applied to a motorcyclist are higher than the ones applied to a motorist? Whether the penalty for a person who refused to cooperate with an alcohol test after drinking is more favorable than the penalty for a person who accepted to receive an alcohol test? Is it necessary to amend an offence of refusal to cooperate with an alcohol test? Is it appropriate to differentiate an alcoholic from a problem drinker while legislating against drunk driving? Whether it should follow the example of complementary measures adopted by the other countries and formulate similar regulations, such as installing an ignition interlock? The article argues that the unsafe driving offence under Article 158-3 of the Criminal Law should reinstate a punishment of short-term imprisonment or fine, which gives judges caseby- case discretion to solve the problem of unfair phenomenon in parole recidivism cases. The police, prosecutors and judges should formulate reasonably different enforcement density and penalty size in investigating, prosecuting, sentencing and enforcing standards for cars and motorbikes. For the purpose of reducing crime of drunk driving, we suggest it should enact a new provision of refusal to cooperate with an alcohol test against people who refuse to take an alcohol or drug test after pulling over, introduce corrections and treatment of problem drinkers and alcoholics related to addition science, and consider adopting complementary measures, such as an ignition interlock's installation in necessity. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
