The opposition is against
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022, the Sejm presented the report of the parliamentary committee that, after its first reading, was working on the government bill to tighten the criminal rules. Among the many solutions proposed there, there were also those that were important to motorists. From this point of view, the main novelty in the project is: provision for forfeiture of the vehicle† On the basis of the amendment, the court could decide on this driving under the influence of alcohol when committing the offenceie with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.5 prom.
The project evokes great emotions right from the start, and what’s more, the change itself touches a much wider jurisdiction than the impoundment of a vehicle. It is therefore not surprising that the discussion was heated.
After the speech by the rapporteur – Piotr Sak of PiS – individual MPs were able to give their opinion.
– We rate it negatively. It is limited to intimidation and the forceful coercion of such and not other conduct. This is a prosecutor’s project, and it is not a project that stems from the work of various groups of the judiciary. There is no opinion from the judiciary or university circles. You must register for this project reject completely at second reading – said Tadeusz Zwiefka from the PO.
– The main assumption in the project is the tightening of penalties. According to the authors of the project, the punishment is to play an educational role. It’s a 19th century concept. The principle of the inevitability of punishment, not its severity, should affect people† We support the motion to reject the project, said Katarzyna Ueberhan, who represents the left.
† Tightening penalties in a situation where the crime rate is not increasing is pure populism† You offer fireworks at a time when the length of the legal proceedings increases. You dress the Attorney General in a sheriff’s suit – said KO’s Jacek Protasiewicz.
– Some of this project is right, but it can’t be fully supported. The idea of impounding the vehicle cannot be supported. In this case the severity of the punishment depends on the wealth of the offenderand not of the act committed by the perpetrator – said Dobromir Sośnierz of the Confederation.
A similar view was expressed by Krzysztof Piątkowski of KO, who noted that the government wants to introduce a system in which one perpetrator despairs of losing a valuable car, and another will be happy, because the state will replace him when scrapping the car. car.
– It is the drunk drivers that should be fought, not the cars – concluded the deputy.
Marcin Warchoł of PiS had a different opinion.
† There is no better sanction than the seizure of a vehicle† Today, drivers under the influence of alcohol are not afraid of the consequences and rush blindly, drunk with the car – said the politician.
The draft was referred for special committee work on the proposed amendments. The fate of the amendment has not yet been decided, but there is no doubt that the government will do everything in its power to make it effective. In the implementation plan of the National Road Safety Council, ie an advisory body of the Minister of Infrastructure, you will find information that the aim is to bring into force the provisions on the seizure of the vehicle of drunk drivers by the end of 2022.
Does it make sense?
Any traffic incident caused by a person under the influence of alcohol or intoxicants arouses our understandable anger. It’s also easy to remember drastic examples of motorized irresponsibility. On Monday, July 4, police officers from Gorzów received information about a driver who may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. When a patrol arrived, the car accelerated. The driver was arrested after a short chase. It turned out to be a 54-year-old who smelled of alcohol. The man already has three lifelong driving bans†
in situation, where applicable laws cannot stop these types of people from further breaking the law, taking the car can be effective† Exclude the possibility of committing a crime and risking the lives of others. The argument of unequal punishment for the same offense can also be refuted. Often the car is a reflection of its ownership status. And how do you propose a deterrent effect if the consequence is not serious for the perpetrator? The question remains, however, where the boundary lies above which confiscation must take place.
To justify the draft amendment, the Ministry of Justice refers to the fact that in some European countries similar rules already exist. Denmark, Switzerland, France, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Slovenia and some federal states of Germany are the examples mentioned in the document. However, it is worth noting that in some of these countries the driver has less than 0.5 ferry. blood alcohol is legal to drive.
It is also questionable whether we need such a right at all. The European Commission’s report for 2020 shows that: Poland belongs to the group of EU countries with the lowest percentage of fatal road accidents caused by drunk drivers† We have this in 9.3 percent. The average for the European Union was 15.2%, and in some countries with a much better overall road safety situation, the situation is worse. Moreover, this is also the case in some countries where car confiscation laws are already in place – for example in France (30.3%) and Denmark (18.3%)†
The draft regulations have been submitted for further elaboration. The future of the project will depend on the outcome. The introduction of confiscation provisions could have positive effects. On the other hand there is also a risk that politicians will recognize that the enactment of the vehicle repossession law is completely conclusive change and will not decide on necessary changes to regulations on driver training or the design and maintenance of road infrastructure.