Reasonable Use of Criminal Law Interpretation- An Example of DUI in China and the U.S.

By Jiahang Ding

I. Introduction

Globally, drunk driving is the biggest risk factor for traffic accidents. For people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-nine in Europe, drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death. [1] According to statistics from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, driving under the influence (DUI) -related car accidents cause about $37 billion in damages each year. [2] According to Chinese official statistics, in just the first half of 2019, there were 1,525 fatal traffic accidents in China due to DUIs, resulting in 1,674 deaths, and 7,512 non-fatal traffic accidents due to DUIs. So, drunk driving-related car accidents are very important to the field of criminal law due to their connection with the protection of personal safety and social public safety.”

II. The legal barriers in criminal law interpretations between China and the U.S.

The main controversy in criminal law interpretations revolves around the principle of legality in crime and punishment. The classic expression of this principle is that acts are not considered criminal and cannot be punished if they are not clearly defined by the law. However, the realization of this wording is based on two assumptions: (1) the law’s provisions are already very clear, with no ambiguity, and the general public can understand the explicit provisions of the Criminal Law, and (2) the law’s provisions are highly perfect, and the entire logical system itself consistent. Based solely on the explicit provisions of relevant legal articles, a fair and reasonable outcome can be achieved for the facts to be applied to the law. For proponents of the omnipotent code theory, this is a self-evident truth. However, through the historical development of human legal civilization, it is known that these two assumptions represent an ideal scenario for describing the law and are challenging to establish in practice due to numerous legal limitations.

Therefore, there is a need for tools that break the limitations of the law, and one of these tools is the principle. Its function is to grant judges discretionary power, thereby narrowing legal loopholes and resolving contradictions.

III. Analysis of the Interpretation of Criminal Law

In U.S. criminal law, the determination of each crime involves three elements: (1) the act (actus reus); (2) the individual’s mental state at the time of the act (mens rea); and (3) the causal relationship between the act and the result. In case law, there are numerous considerations regarding the individuals and their actual circumstances. The principle of legality in criminal law states that “there is no crime without law” and “there is no punishment without law.” The fundamental meaning of this principle is that criminal acts, their types, and elements must be defined in advance by legal provisions. Acts that are not expressly defined as crimes in criminal law cannot result in conviction and punishment. Legal interpretation should be restricted, primarily in two aspects: (1) it should be limited to the definitive meanings specified in legal texts, and (2) it should be constrained by the mainstream understanding of the application of the law. These limitations form a progressive relationship, meaning that in legal concepts, we should first understand them based on their literal meanings.

Furthermore, we should not solely rely on a literal interpretation but also consider the specific context for a comprehensive understanding. [3] Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates: “No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.”

IV. Overcoming Legal Interpretation Issues

Firstly, language itself is inherently ambiguous and vague, leading to uncertainty and diversity in the patterns it expresses. The same sentence, with different punctuation, or even different pauses, can convey completely distinct meanings. Secondly, the ambiguous terms in the law are not necessarily legislative errors but rather reflections of the legislator’s intent. They make “ambiguity” a tool of legislation, enabling a legal provision to adapt to various real-life situations. This is a strategy employed by legislative bodies to cope with unexpected events.

Thirdly, humans differ from machines; anyone’s rationality is limited. Law, as a combination of human rationality, cannot be perfect. Being a human-made creation, it can have deficiencies in legislative technique and might even make errors in value choices. Coupled with the relative certainty of the law and the complexity of real-life situations, the law demands judicial authorities to interpret the law. The judges’ discretionary power acts as a safety net clause, allowing the law to be interpreted broadly to fill in the gaps, and to a certain extent, eliminate the drawbacks inherent in written laws. According to the principles of interpretation, judicial authorities should: (1) if the Criminal law contains explicit provisions, have no right to expand them to situations decided by the legislative body, but the court can interpret the provisions favorably to the defendant in a rough and broad manner; (2) if the Criminal Law is unclear or can be interpreted in certain aspects, judges should deeply understand the true meaning of the law and strive to apply it in those areas; and (3) if there is “doubt” in the law, not obligated to choose the “most favorable restrictive interpretation for the defendant.” The real meaning of the law must be found through general interpretative methods.

Additionally, a crucial role of the law is to maintain social public order, which requires something stable to uphold the order. The stability of the law is its advantage. Modifying legal provisions requires extensive time and careful consideration. The speed of legal modification can never keep up with the pace of social development. Changes in social life will inevitably push the law’s lagging issue to the forefront. Excessive and frequent amendments to the law might not be beneficial since incessant legislative changes contradict the law’s function of maintaining order. If the law itself lacks stability, how can it maintain order?

V. The different determinations of DUI in China and the U.S.

Laws on drunk driving vary from country to country and from region to region, which mainly include three points: (1) different blood alcohol content for recognizing driving; (2) different specific facts for recognizing drunk driving; and (3) different penalties. There are two main aspects to the determination of drunk driving in China: Firstly, in terms of the object of the crime, drunk driving violates the safety of highway transportation as well as the safety of pedestrians, vehicles, and other public facilities, which is usually referred to as “traffic safety”. [4] “Traffic safety” involves the transportation process that puts the lives of many people at risk, including significant health and property concerns. In addition, according to the regulations issued by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China titled “Thresholds and Testing for Blood Alcohol andBreath Alcohol Concentration for Vehicle Drivers,” drunk driving refers to the behavior of vehicle drivers with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or greater than20mg/100ml but less than 80mg/100ml. [5] Drinking and driving refers to the driving behavior where the blood alcohol content of the vehicle driver is greater than or equal to 80mg/100ml. It can be seen here that DUI in China only considers alcohol but not other situations such as drug use.

States in the U.S. have different laws regarding drunk driving, and this article is mainly based on the laws of Pennsylvania. According to specific cases, it is not difficult to see, even if there are no personal injury traffic accidents, once the police find that the driver’s alcohol content is higher than the legal standard, the driver will be detained in custody and then sentenced by the criminal judge. The drivers with the lowest alcohol content can be sentenced to one week of imprisonment, while the drivers with the heaviest alcohol content can be sentenced to one year of imprisonment. In Pennsylvania, however, the rules regarding DUI mean that it is illegal to operate a vehicle after consuming alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substances. Driving while intoxicated (DWI) is very similar to DUI. However, DWI simply means that someone is operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. DUI means that the operator of the vehicle is under the influence of illegal drugs, prescription drugs, or alcohol. DUI is commonly used in Pennsylvania to describe this type of offense, so when charged in this state, the charge may not be DWI. Penalties also vary in Pennsylvania depending on the alcohol
content.

VI. U.S. Controversy in DUI – Actual Physical Control

Reasonable grounds for a DUI offense in the U.S. include: a person is guilty of DUI if he or she operates a vehicle while intoxicated. This includes two things: (1) intoxication and (2) driving or operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The first aspect can be determined by many factors, for example, Missouri police will decide if a person is intoxicated based on a variety of signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, difficulty walking, and refusal to take a sobriety test. The criteria for a DUI offense may vary from state to state, but in general, U.S. law defines a DUI as a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), which is a unit of measurement expressed as the amount of alcohol per liter of blood. In most U.S. states, the legal standard for drunk driving is usually: Adults Twenty-one years of age and older: Typically, the legal standard for drunk driving is a BAC of 0.08%. If a driver’s BAC exceeds this standard, he or she is considered to be driving while intoxicated. Minors under the age of Twenty-one: For minors, the legal standard for drunk driving is usually stricter. Many states require that a minor’s BAC cannot exceed 0.02% or 0.00%.

The second point, however, is more difficult to argue; it is not necessary to witness the suspect driving while intoxicated, and circumstantial evidence can be relied upon, but it must be proven by sufficient circumstantial evidence. But what kind of circumstantial evidence can adequately prove that the suspect was driving the vehicle in an intoxicated state is controversial. In many cases, even if the suspect is in the car and the vehicle is not moving, that still does not adequately prove the suspect drove the car in a drunken state.

I conclude that the following are the main types of circumstantial evidence as to whether the suspect was operating the automobile: engine running, vehicle location, and other evidence proving that the defendant was driving the vehicle. Engine running is a prerequisite to the actual physical operation of the vehicle, and vehicle location is what helps us reason when and how the vehicle was moving. When an officer finds an unconscious or sleeping person in a stationary vehicle, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person is operating the vehicle. If the person is seated behind the steering wheel and the keys are in the ignition, that person is considered operating the vehicle. And the engine is running if the person is seated behind the steering wheel, the keys are in the ignition, and the person is operating the vehicle. [6]

The following are examples of relevant case law: Finding the defendant had actual control of the vehicle when found parked in an alley on the way home to pull over with engine running, [7] finding the defendant asleep in a parked car with headlights on and engine running, found the defendant had actual control, [8] when the defendant was found sleeping on side of the highway with three-quarters of his car protruding from the highway, headlights on and engine running, found actual control, [9] finding the defendant in actual control of automobile when found sleeping in his automobile, which at that time was not moving but was parked in the middle of the road. [10] Even if the motorist was found asleep behind the wheel of a moving car, there was no actual control because the car was not removed from the parking lot of the bar where the motorist was intoxicated. [11]

VII. China’s Controversy in DUI – Roads

Similar to DUI in the U.S., the offense of drunk driving does not concern itself with whether or not a person is killed or injured or financial damage occurs; as long as the act of driving while intoxicated occurs, the suspect can be punished. However, compared to the U.S., where the minimum sentence for DUI is one week in jail and the maximum sentence is one year in jail, China’s penalties are lighter, with the maximum sentence being a custodial sentence because other crimes can be punished when a DUI causes a serious danger to public safety. In China, the situation of the crime must meet the following four points: “road,” “driving,” “motor vehicle,” and “drunkenness.”

However, the determination of what qualifies as a “road” leaves a lot more room for interpretation. [12] But with the development of scientific information technology and transportation, there is no way to specifically exclude through the qualification of which places or roads are not the possibility of public access. At present, the concept of “road” is more controversial than the parking lot of drunken dangerous driving behavior, A sampling of China’s adjudication documents network several cases found in the vast majority of cases show that drunk driving in parking lots is still punished. However, a few drunk drivers were exempted from criminal penalties, and analysis of the judgments found that these cases of drunk driving in parking lots without criminal penalties need to meet the following two points: (1) special occasions: special parking lots should not be recognized as “roads;” and (2) specific time: late at night or early in the morning in the parking lot. Due to the scarcity of
people in and out of the parking lot, it does not have the quality of being used for
public transportation. Moving a car for a short distance after being drunk should be the same as the wilderness road, which does not have the abstract danger, and thus is not considered to be the type of drunkenness.

VIII. Conclusion

The fundamental purpose of the offense of drunken driving is to protect personal safety as well as the public safety of society. Nowadays, with the development of highway transportation, we should minimize the occurrence of personal injury and property damage caused by drunken driving. The role of the law is not to focus on the level of punishment, but to act as more of a warning and education. Combined with the U.S. and China for the determination of the crime of drunk driving and penalties, the incriminating aspects of the appropriate expansion of the scope of the road, even in the parking lot for a short period of time should also be recognized as drunk driving. Whether there is drunkenness or actual physical operation, should be examined more strictly, combined with the state of the engine, vehicle location and other circumstances to be analyzed. In principle, drunk driving should not be criminalized for people who do not drive under the influence of alcohol, nor should ordinary people be discouraged from driving under the influence of alcohol.

[1]	Francisco, et. al., Driving under the influence of alcohol: frequency, reasons, perceived risk and punishment, 10 Substance Abuse, Treatment, Prevention &Pol’y 1 (2015).
[2]	NHTSA, Drug-Impaired Driving, United States Department of Transportation, (2018), https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drug-impaired-driving#:~:text=Overview, prescribed%20or%20over%20the%20counter.
[3]	See Zhou Shaohua, The Fate of Legality Principle in Criminal Justice—Legal ReflectionsTriggered by a Case.J.Law Research, (2) 2003.
[4]	YIN Zhihua. Analysis of the constituent elements of “drunken driving offense”.J. Theory, 128, 129- 16 (2011).
[5]	LI Tao, LI Xinyu. In the Era of Misdemeanor, the Judicial Dilemma and Governance of Drunk Dangerous Driving Crime in China.J. Journal of Yunnan PoliceCollege, 122,128- 03 (2023).
[6]	Cox v. Dir. of Revenue, 98 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. banc. Ct. 2003).
[7]	Commonwealth v. Bobotas, 588 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
[8]	Commonwealth v. Crum, 523 A.2d 799 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987).
[9]	Commonwealth v. Kloch, 327 A.2d 375 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974).
[10]	Commonwealth v. Leib, 588 A.2d 922 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
[11]	Commonwealth v. Byers, 650 A.2d 468 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994).
[12]	Wang Yaming. Substantive Exoneration Feasibility Study of Intoxicated Dangerous Driving – A Sample of 160 Judgments of Intoxicated Dangerous Driving Parking Lots.J. Jiangsu Social Science, 121, 129- 05 (2021).