The only effective way to curb drunk driving offenses is to deny habitual drunk drivers access to vehicles.
This would require amending the confiscation provisions of Article 38 of the Criminal Code to allow the seizure of a vehicle driven in such a case, whether it belongs to the offender or not.
A habitual drunk driver in Kaohsiung on Sunday last week plowed into a family of four on a crosswalk, killing the mother and injuring the others.
Police are reportedly investigating the case on suspicion of indeterminate intentional manslaughter and drunk driving resulting in death.
The public has been outraged by a string of drunk driving fatalities, to which the Ministry of Justice has responded by increasing the penalties for offenders stipulated in Article 185-3 of the Criminal Code.
However, the facts have shown that tougher penalties only have a limited effect in deterring drunk driving. The intended changes in behavior can only occur if drunk drivers’ means to drive are confiscated.
While collecting fines from drunk driving offenders in Changhua County, I found that for many, drunk driving is a form of catharsis and a habitual way to blow off steam.
In many cases, their licenses have long been revoked due to previous drunk driving offenses, and vehicle licenses registered under their names had been canceled. Yet they continue to drive illegally, often in vehicles borrowed from family members or friends.
In most cases, habitual drunk drivers had no property registered under their names, so they did not care much about being punished.
To stop such people from continuing to drink and drive, the punishment must be extended to their family members and friends who lend them their vehicles. Only by preventing the driver from obtaining a vehicle can drunk driving be stopped.
Article 38 of the Criminal Code says that objects “used in the commission of or preparation for the commission of an offense or a thing derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense may be confiscated only if it belongs to the offender. If there are special provisions, these special provisions shall be followed.”
If the vehicle used by a drunk driver belongs to someone other than the offender, it cannot be confiscated, despite its having been used in the commission of an offense.
Article 38 should be amended, making vehicle owners liable for knowingly letting somebody drive their vehicle while drunk. Vehicles used in drunk driving incidents should be confiscated, whether or not they belong to the offender.
Article 12 of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例) should also be amended. Vehicles driven by an unlicensed person under the influence of alcohol should be confiscated at the scene and the driver be detained. This confiscation should be permanent; vehicles should not be returned based on the pertinent legislation, which says that “notices shall be issued to owners who may claim the cars within a prescribed period of time.”
Hu Tien-tzu is a senior enforcement officer at the Changhua branch of the Ministry of Justice’s Administrative Enforcement Agency.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS