Irrational Drunk Driving Demands Rational Legislation! Joint Statement by Civil Society Organizations on Severe Penalties for Drunk Driving

1. Increasing Penalties as a Countermeasure Against Drunk Driving Should Be Supported by Empirical Research

   Article 185-3 of the Criminal Code (the offense of driving under the influence to a degree of unsafe operation) had its penalties raised successively through three amendments in 2008, 2011, and 2013. The frequent raising of the maximum statutory penalties is ultimately intended to deter drunk driving through harsh punishments. Recently, several legislators proposed draft amendments to raise the statutory penalty for causing death through drunk driving to "life imprisonment" or even the "death penalty."

   However, in both legal theory and statutory law, the elements of a crime have rigorous examination frameworks. Whether drunk driving involves subjective intent to kill and thereby constitutes intentional homicide is a matter for the judiciary to find facts and subsume them under legal elements. Furthermore, the frequent occurrence of drunk driving has social and cultural causes; the function of criminal punishment ultimately has limits and cannot replace evidence-based criminal policies. Whether criminal legislation that lacks empirical research and blindly pursues harsh punishments can truly achieve the function of preventing drunk driving, or whether it will merely create more social problems (such as severe overcrowding in correctional facilities and greater difficulty for inmates to reintegrate into society after long-term imprisonment), requires comprehensive and prudent prior research and evaluation.

2. Excessively High Penalties May Lead to Difficulties in Application to Individual Cases

   If the penalty for causing death through drunk driving is raised to "life imprisonment" or even the "death penalty," the penalty for offenses with aggravated consequences would be indistinguishable from that of intentional homicide. This would likely disrupt the theoretical foundation of imputation in modern criminal law and cause confusion in judicial practice regarding the interpretation and application of legal elements. Moreover, when reviewing specific cases, courts must exercise their discretion in subsuming legal elements and sentencing based on the concrete circumstances of each case. Directly raising the statutory penalty for causing death through drunk driving to a level equivalent to intentional homicide would easily lead to situations where the punishment is disproportionately severe relative to the offense. In addition, imposing the death penalty for criminal acts lacking the intent to kill would inevitably violate Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see General Comment No. 36 on the Right to Life, paragraphs 35 and 50, 2018). Therefore, civil society organizations sincerely appeal that evidence-based criminal legislation complying with the principles of culpability and proportionality is the proper countermeasure against crime to be adopted by a modern state under the rule of law, and is an important indicator for aligning Taiwan with international human rights standards. Precisely because the public attaches high importance to the issue of drunk driving, legislators should exercise their powers even more rationally and prudently pass the most appropriate legislation.

Joint Initiating Organizations

Covenant Watch
Taipei Bar Association
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Taiwan Forever Association
Judicial Reform Foundation
Taiwan Association for Innocence
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty
(Listed in stroke order)

Media Contacts

Huang Ying-chia, Attorney / Director of the Complaint Center and Legal Department, Judicial Reform Foundation
Li Ming-ju, Attorney / Staff Attorney, Judicial Reform Foundation