(dissenting).
I. I think we should apply section 707.-5(1) in accordance with its plain and unambiguous terms. The court majority injects a common-law recklessness requirement into the section by a process of construction. This court has often said however that no room for construction exists when a statute is plain and unambiguous. E. g., Spilman v. Board of Directors, 253 N.W.2d 593, 596 (Iowa 1977) (“It is our duty to give it the interpretation its language calls for and not to speculate as to probable legislative intent apart from the wording used.”); First National Bank of Ottumwa v. Bair, 252 N.W.2d 723, 725 (Iowa 1977) (“Where the language is clear and plain, there is no room for construction. . . . ”); State v. Dunham, 232 N.W.2d 475, 476 (Iowa 1975) (“If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous no duty of interpretation arises . . . .”); Maguire v. Fulton, 179 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Iowa 1970) (“If the language of a statute when given its plain and rational meaning is precise and free from ambiguity, no more is necessary than to apply to the words used their ordinary sense in connection with the subject considered.”).
II. I do not see how the General Assembly could have made this section clearer. The State charged defendant under paragraph 1 of the section. The section in its entirety reads:
1. A person commits a class “D” felony when the person unintentionally causes the death of another person by the commission of a public offense other than a forcible felony or escape.
2. A person commits an aggravated misdemeanor when the person unintentionally causes the death of another person by the commission of an act in a *690manner likely to cause death or serious injury.
Involuntary manslaughter as defined in this section is an included offense under an indictment for murder in the first or second degree or voluntary manslaughter.
What is a “public offense” under paragraph 1 of this section? Section 701.2 defines those words thus:
A public offense is that which is prohibited by statute and is punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Also pertinent is section 702.1, which provides:
Wherever a term, word or phrase is defined in the criminal code, such meaning shall be given wherever it appears in the Code, unless it is being specially defined for a special purpose.
(Both running a stop light and exceeding the speed limit are “prohibited by statute” and “punishable by fine or imprisonment.” §§ 321.256, 321.285, 321.482, 903.1(3), The Code.)
III. The legislative history of section 707.5 does not support injection of a recklessness requirement; on the contrary it shows that the General Assembly' turned away from the common-law definition of involuntary manslaughter containing the recklessness element. The prior section on manslaughter did not define the crime and required us to look to the common law. § 690.10, The Code 1977 (“Any person guilty of the crime of manslaughter shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding eight years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.”); see State v. Davis, 196 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Iowa 1972). When the drafting committee for the new criminal code came to this class of homicide, it initially proceeded along the line of our previous common-law definition of manslaughter; by doing so it retained the recklessness concept. 1975 S.J. 210. In the Senate the Coinmittee on Judiciary and Law Enforcement filed an amendment which in effect would also have referred us to the common-law definition of manslaughter. 1975 S.J. 321.
Shortly thereafter however the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who was also the Senate floor manager of the bill, filed an amendment which departed substantially from the common law. 1975 S.J. 358, 396. The amendment approached involuntary manslaughter from the standpoint of homicide by the commission of a public offense or by the commission of art act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. This approach prevailed in the General Assembly in what is now section 7Ó7.5. That body thus substituted its own definition of the crime for the common-law definition containing the recklessness requirement. For various “unlawful act” manslaughter statutes in other jurisdictions, see Cal.Penal Code § 192 (West 1970); Ga.Code Ann. § 26-1103(a) (1978); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-305(1) (Supp.1978); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 30-2-3(B) (1978); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2903.04 (1971); Okla.Stat.Ann. title 21, § 711 (West 1958); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-2409 (1975).
These jurisdictions also enacted separate motor vehicle homicide statutes. Cal.Penal Code § 192, subd. 3 (West 1970); id. § 193 (Supp.1980); Ga.Code Ann. § 68A-903 (Supp.1979); id. § 26-401(e), (g) (1978); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-306 (Supp.1979); id. §§ 28-105, -106 (Supp.1978); N.M.Stat. Ann. §§ 66-8-101, -7, -9 (Supp.1979); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2903.06, .07, 2929.-11(B)(4), .21(B)(1) (Baldwin 1979); Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-903 (1971); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-2412, -2413 (Supp.1979); Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-1115 (1977). Commonly these statutes specify the culpability required for a violation, and they differ in punishment for different degrees of homicide by vehicle from as little as a fine, see Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-306(2), to as high as five years. See Ga.Code Ann. § 68A-903(a). As examples of various degrees of required culpability, the Georgia statute distinguishes between homicide resulting from reckless driving, driving with ability impaired by alcohol or drugs, fleeing the police, and homicide resulting from violation of other rules of the road; the Nebraska statute distinguishes between homicide resulting from reckless driving, willful reckless driving, driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, and other types of homicide by vehicle; and the Oklahoma statute requires reckless disre*691gard of the safety of others for any conviction on homicide by vehicle charges.
Statutory precedent thus existed for the Iowa General Assembly to enact a separate motor vehicle homicide statute specifying recklessness or other requirements. The General Assembly, however, did not take that approach either. Instead, it followed the lead of the State of Nevada which does not have a separate statute for motor vehicle homicide. Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.070 (1973). Hence we do not have “recklessness” or a similar term in our involuntary manslaughter law. The General Assembly provided instead in section 707.5 that this crime consists of unintentionally causing the death of another “by the commission of a public offense other than a forcible felony or escape” or “by the commission of an act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury.” Perhaps a good legislative argument could be developed that Iowa should have a separate motor vehicle homicide statute specifying recklessness or other elements, but that does not authorize the judiciary to write in such requirements.
IV.When the language of legislation is plain, courts should not by the process of construction inject their own views on the advisability of statutory provisions. We have repeatedly said that the wisdom of legislation is for the General Assembly and not for us to decide. E. g., Hawkins v. Preisser, 264 N.W.2d 726, 729 (Iowa 1978) (“we do not pass upon the wisdom of the statute”); City of Waterloo v. Selden, 251 N.W.2d 506, 508 (Iowa 1977) (“Courts do not pass on the policy, wisdom, advisability or justice of a statute.”); Lunday v. Vogelmann, 213 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Iowa 1973) (“Our view of the wisdom of the legislation is irrelevant.”). If this statute proves to be unwise, the General Assembly can change it. I note however that the Nevada statute provides, “Involuntary manslaughter shall consist in the killing of a human being without any intent to do so, in the commission of an unlawful act . .”, Nev. Rev.Stat. § 200.070 (1973), that the Nevada Supreme Court has approved submission of this statute to juries in the words of the statute, State v. Lewis, 59 Nev. 262, 271, 91 P.2d 820, 823-24 (1939), and that the Neva-
da legislature has evidently found no necessity to change the statute.
Failure to apply statutes in accordance with their plain language, by the process of construction, requires the General Assembly to act a second time in order to obtain application of its views. Compare Rodriquez v. Fulton, 190 N.W.2d 417, 419 (Iowa 1971) (§ 321B.3 of the Code construed to require demand for blood test prior to other tests in drunken driving cases despite áb-sence of statutory language, to that effect), with 1974 Session, 65th G.A. ch. 1194, § 1 (spelling out that officer makes the choice of the test).
V. I acknowledge a statute may be so general that the courts are obliged to fill up the details by decision. Our prior manslaughter section was of that nature. In those instances the statutes do not contain plain language to be carried out. The same cannot be said however of section 707.5(1); this statute contains a precise definition of the crime — “unintentionally causes the death of another person by the commission of a public offense other than a forcible entry or escape.” The mental element is covered: “unintentionally” causes the death of another, not “unintentionally but recklessly” causes the death of another. I also acknowledge that courts have added requirements to save statutes from unconstitutionality. State v. Ramos, 260 Iowa 590, 595, 149 N.W.2d 862, 865 (1967) (scienter in obscenity statute). We do not however have a constitutional problem here — a subject I will now take up.
VI. In addition to his statutory construction argument, defendant asserts that section 707.5(1) violates various constitutional guarantees, but he cites no authority actually holding such a statute to be constitutionally infirm. To the contrary the statute is a quite common one. Defendant has the heavy burden of establishing that the statute clearly, palpably, and without doubt infringes constitutional rights. State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688, 690-91 (Iowa 1977).
Defendant argues that the statute deprives him of due process because it is vague and overbroad. But in the same act a “public offense” is defined as that which *692is prohibited by statute and punished by fine or imprisonment. We have statutory crimes in this jurisdiction, and the acts and omissions which are prohibited by statute and punished by fine or imprisonment are specified in the Code itself. The statute thus gives fair warning of what is prohibited and provides definite standards to enforcement officials. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 409 U.S, 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 227-28 (1972). The particular public offense underlying a given involuntary manslaughter charge may or may not require criminal intent, but that does not cause the statute to violate the Constitution. Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 533-35, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 2154-55, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254, 1268-69 (1968); Iowa City v. Nolan, 239 N.W.2d 102, 104 (Iowa 1976).
Defendant also argues that the statute imposes cruel and unusual punishment. Cases of this kind involve the deaths of human beings, deaths allegedly resulting from the commission of public offenses. The General Assembly evidently regarded such incidents as serious. The penalty here is not “so excessively severe that it is disproportionate to the offense charged.” State v. Robbins, 257 N.W.2d 63, 68 (Iowa 1977) (citations omitted). The maximum punishment was reduced from that under the former statute. On this subject see State v. Baumann, 236 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Iowa 1975) (five-year mandatory term for delivery of marijuana), and State v. McNeal, 167 N.W.2d 674, 677-78 (Iowa 1969).
Defendant contends that the statute creates an arbitrary, unreasonable classification, that it deprives him of equal protection of law. The classification in section 707.5 is a common one, and I cannot say it is irrational. See State v. Boothe, 284 N.W.2d 206, 208-09 (Iowa 1979); Robbins, 257 N.W.2d at 68; Hack v. Auger, 228 N.W.2d 42, 43 (Iowa 1975); State v. Edwards, 236 Ga. 104, 107, 222 S.E.2d 385, 387 (1976).
In a related argument defendant contends that laws must have a uniform application. Section 707.5(1), however, is not subject to the alleged infirmity in some statutes which predicate the crime of involuntary manslaughter on deaths resulting from violations of local ordinances; section 701.2 restricts a “public offense” to that which is prohibited by “statute”. See An-not., 85 A.L.R.3d 1072 (1978).
Defendant also argues that this prosecution would violate the guaranty against double jeopardy — he was previously convicted of running the red light. His double jeopardy argument, however, is not supported by our decisions. See State v. Stergion, 248 N.W.2d 911, 913-14 (Iowa 1976); State v. Stewart, 223 N.W.2d 250, 251 (Iowa), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 902, 96 S.Ct. 205, 46 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974). See also, In re Dennis B., 18 Cal.3d 687, 692, 135 Cal.Rptr. 82, 557 P.2d 514, 517 (1976); People V. Townsend, 214 Mich. 267, 275,183 N.W. 177, 180 (1921); State v. Empey, 65 Utah 609, 618, 239 P. 25, 28 (1925); Annots., 172 A.L.R. 1053 (1948), 44 A.L.R. 564 (1926).
I would therefore reverse the judgment and return the case to district court for trial.
McGIVERIN, J., joins in this dissent.