醉驾案件不起诉裁量机制的实证研究  

An Empirical Study of Discretionary Non-prosecution in DWI Cases

作　　者：王志坚 WANG Zhijian(Guanghua Law School,Zhejiang University;Digital Rule of Law Laboratory and Research Center for Intersectional Law,Zhejiang University)

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院 [2]浙江大学数字法治实验室 [3]浙江大学交叉法研究中心

出　　处：《法学家》2024年第3期61-73,192,共14页The Jurist

基　　金：国家社科基金项目“刑事案件事实认定中的经验法则研究”(19BFX092)的阶段性研究成果;中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助。

摘　　要：基于醉驾案件检察文书的实证研究发现,醉驾不起诉裁量并未很好地体现综合性考量。一方面检察机关并未考虑酒驾时段、驾车类型等必要因素;另一方面,从重处罚情节的裁量权重普遍大于从轻处罚情节。规范层面的“严罚化”导向以及制度层面缺乏不起诉裁量空间,造成了醉驾不起诉裁量的“轻重失衡”,进而抑制了醉驾不起诉的拓宽适用。为此,有必要在适用规范中详尽列举醉驾不起诉的裁量要素,并明确综合裁量理念,同时以实证数据为支撑,提升适用标准的实践合理性。另外,应当将“犯罪情节轻微”作为适用相对不起诉的实质要件及判断标准,并构建以程序为主导的不起诉裁量权监督制约机制。Empirical research based on prosecutorial documents of driving while intoxicated(DWI)cases found that DWI non-prosecution discretion lacked comprehensiveness and neutrality.Prosecutors overlooked necessary factors such as the time of occurrence and the type of driving.Moreover,the weight given to aggravating circumstances generally exceeded that of mitigating circumstances.The normative orientation towards“severe punishment”and the absence of institutional-level non-prosecution discretionary space led to a“leniency-rigidity imbalance”in DWI non-prosecution discretion,impeding its wider application.To rectify this,it is crucial to thoroughly enumerate the discretionary elements of DWI non-prosecution in applicable norms and clarify the concept of comprehensive discretion.Additionally,supported by empirical data,enhancing the practical rationality of applicable standards is vital.Furthermore,defining“minority of the crime”as the substantive element of the discretionary non-prosecution application and establishing a procedure-oriented nonprosecution discretionary supervision and control mechanism are necessary steps.

关 键 词：醉驾案件 相对不起诉 综合裁量 犯罪情节轻微 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]