The Legislative Yuan passed the amendments to some provisions of the Criminal Code in the third reading the day before yesterday. Officials said that the amendments to delete the special confiscation provisions in the draft version of the Political Yuan will make drug and drunk driving drivers who cause death or serious injuries lack the legal basis for "confiscation" of powered vehicles in terms of criminal liability. In this regard, the Popular Party Group today criticized that the amendment to the drug-driving law and the increase in criminal penalties were originally intended to respond to social expectations, but whenever the opposition party took the lead in amending the law, it was distorted by officials.
New regulations under the "Road Traffic Ordinance" came on the road yesterday, including raising the fine for drug-driving to NT$120,000 for motorcycles and NT$150,000 for cars. Repeat offenders will be fined NT$90,000 each time. There is no upper limit on the cumulative amount, and their driver's license will be revoked. They will not be allowed to retake the test within 2 years. Those who drive under the influence of drugs or who refuse to take the test will be confiscated, regardless of whether they are the owners of the vehicle or not. In addition, those who refuse to take a drug driving test will be fined NT$270,000 for the first time, and an additional fine of NT$180,000 for subsequent offenses. Passengers over the age of 18 who knowingly drive under the influence of drugs but fail to dissuade them from driving will be fined up to NT$15,000.
In addition, the Blue and White Party Group relied on its numerical advantage to strongly pass the amendment to the "Criminal Code" on the third reading. The penalty for drug driving will be increased from the current fixed-term imprisonment of less than 3 years to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than 6 months and less than 5 years. Repeat drug-driving offenders who cause death can be punished with the death penalty and may be fined up to 10 million yuan.
DPP legislators later criticized that the whole bill only took 27 minutes from the time it was proposed to the vote. Not only was the third reading rushed, but the "confiscation of transportation" clause added to the Executive Yuan version of the draft was also missing. Some officials pointed out that although the road traffic regulations stipulate that the perpetrator causes serious injury or death or is simply poisoned. The driver confiscates the "vehicle", but if the perpetrator is driving a "other" powered vehicle, there is no way to punish him. It is emphasized that the "confiscation" of the vehicle in the Road Traffic Regulations is an administrative penalty, and the degree of deterrence is not as good as the "confiscation" of the criminal law. The two deterrent levels are different and difficult to replace each other.
In addition, although the alcohol concentration of the drunk driver does not meet the standard (the breath alcohol concentration is more than 0.25 mg), there are other specific circumstances that make it impossible to drive safely. For example, although the alcohol concentration does not meet the standard, but there is an accident that causes death or serious injury, it may also constitute a drunk driving crime. In this case, according to traffic regulations, there is no illegal entry. According to the special provisions on vehicle confiscation in the Criminal Law Amendment Draft previously proposed by the Executive Yuan, the vehicle responsible for the accident can be confiscated.
In response, the People's Party caucus countered that if drunk driving and drug driving cause death or serious injury, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, Item 9 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, "the vehicle can be confiscated, and there is no need to repeatedly add to the criminal law." The vehicles mentioned in the "Road Traffic Ordinance" include cars and motorcycles, and there is no loophole in the anonymous official's claim that drug driving and drunk driving cause death or serious injury and the vehicle cannot be confiscated.
Secondly, the anonymous official said that if the alcohol concentration does not meet the standard but causes an accident that results in death or serious injury, the vehicle that cannot be confiscated according to the road traffic regulations should be referred to as "electrically assisted vehicles." However, in the Executive Yuan version of the third reading of the road traffic regulations revision in July this year, the Executive Yuan version was originally not included in the scope of confiscation, and the amendment was passed. Why is it necessary to set different standards in the criminal law? They are fundamentally contradictory, oppose for the sake of opposition, and do not hesitate to spread rumors and distort for the electoral interests of the ruling party.
