本研究欲探討歷年酒駕罰則的修法（行政處罰和刑事處罰）對抑制酒駕再犯的成效。鑑於酒後駕車造成個人生命財產的損失和龐大的社會成本，基於社會輿論對酒駕的零容忍與政府打擊酒駕的決心，民國88年時刑法185-3條將酒駕列入公共危險罪的範疇，之後至102年之間又三次修訂刑法，提高罰金與加重刑期等加重酒駕的刑事處罰；另外，民國90-102年道路交通管理處罰條例第35條亦有多次修法，藉由提高罰金、扣車、延長吊照期限等行政處罰，來提高酒駕行為的成本，全面扼止酒駕事件的發生。歷經多次的行政及刑事酒駕罰則的修法，警方取締的酒駕事件仍居高不下，每年仍至少有10萬件之多。 本篇研究擬結合96-106年酒駕取締違規資料、交通事故調查報告表、以及公共危險之不能安全駕駛罪判刑資料，以兩年的時間進行下列的研究主題。第一，我們依照不同修法期間酒駕行政與刑事處罰之前後的差異，來檢視酒駕初犯者接受不同酒駕懲罰的形式（例如：罰鍰/罰金的提高、吊銷駕照與有期徒刑的延長等），是否有效降低其在1年、3年或5年之內酒駕再犯或車禍肇事的機率。第二，鑑於駕駛拒絕酒測的比例隨酒駕罰則修法而大幅波動，這些可能形成防範酒駕肇事的漏網之魚，我們將以實證研究評估歷年行政罰（道路交通管理處罰條例第35條）與刑事罰（刑法第185-3）的修法，是否會加深駕駛拒絕酒測的誘因；並進一步分析有接受酒駕懲罰及拒酒測者的兩個族群中，之後其酒駕再犯及車禍肇事率是否有明顯差異。第三，我們實證分析歷年酒駕相關法令的修法，是否只是降低想要酒駕上路的駕駛喝酒的數量，而非使駕駛分離“飲酒”與“開車”的行為。上述三個議題，其實是評量酒駕罰則對降低酒駕再犯的直接影響，以及評量酒駕者是否有規避罰則的作為，而使嚴懲酒駕的政策效果不如預期。最後，我們藉由前項評量酒駕懲罰對降低酒駕再犯的效果提出政策建言，以減少酒駕相關之交通事故、死亡及受傷的人數。上述的多個研究議題將於二年內完成。 ;This research aims to investigate the effects of administrative and criminal penalty on the drunk driving recidivism. Alcohol-related traffic accidents caused many dead and injured each year. The social costs associated with drunk driving are enormous, including the loss of labor productivity, medical expenditures, police labor force, justice and incarceration systems. There are two types of penalty designed to punish the drivers under the influence of alcohol. One is the administrative penalty based on Article 35 of the Statute Governing Road Traffic (道路交通管理處罰條例第35條); the other is the criminal penalty according to the Article 185-3 of the Criminal Code (刑法185-3條). In the past two decades, several statutory amendments that designed to aggravate penalties for drunk driving seems ineffective in deterring the occurrence of driving after drinking. In this research, we empirically analyze the effects of the administrative and criminal penalty on the re-offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. By employing multiple data sets spanned in 2007-2017, we analyze whether the statutory changes of the administrative and criminal penalty is effective in deterring the recidivism of the first offenders of the alcohol-related traffic and criminal law. Secondly, we analyze whether or not aggravating the punishment will encourage the drunk drivers to escape the underlying penalty by denying the breathalyzer test. Thirdly, we investigate whether the ineffectiveness of drunk driving penalty might be because drivers will drive with less drinking, rather than detaching drinking and driving behaviors. Our empirical results will offer some policy implications on deterring the drunk driving recidivism.
