【By Observer Network Columnist Shen Yi】
In 2025, the newly revised "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" of our country added a system for sealing records of public security violations (Article 136), which has caused widespread social attention. On one hand, many public opinions believe that sealing records of drug use and other illegal acts reflects the progress of judicial civilization; but on the other hand, some people are worried that this measure may weaken the deterrent effect of the law and bring potential safety risks.
From the practical perspective, the sealing of public security violation records is actually the implementation of the relevant system of criminal record sealing in the field of public security administration. Globally, the "light crime + criminal record sealing" system has been practiced in European and American countries for a long time, and provides a large amount of reference for its consequences.
To help all parties better understand this issue, this issue of "Yi Yu Dao Po" will systematically examine the "light crime + criminal record sealing" model in European and American countries from aspects such as historical context, governance logic, and practical shortcomings, analyze some problems that have already emerged, and from an observer's perspective, offer corresponding views and opinions, as well as provide some useful information for this large-scale public discussion.
The background of the "light crime + record sealing" in Europe and America
From the most fundamental source, the core intention of the relevant legislation is to avoid the person who committed an illegal act from being long-term stigmatized and suffering excessive social pressure and discrimination beyond the extent of their fault, while at the same time, in terms of technology and practice, the record itself remains intact in the public security system, available for use when necessary for case investigation.
The formation of the "light crime + criminal record sealing" system in European and American countries is not a sudden event, but the result of long-term interaction of specific historical backgrounds, social structures, and legal concepts. To understand this model, it is necessary to restore its development process and basic logic.
First, the evolution of light punishment for crimes. Western criminal justice gradually introduced the concept of "light crime" in the 20th century, distinguishing it from serious crimes, and shifted from severe punishment to relatively lenient handling for minor violations. This idea can be traced back to earlier judicial reforms. In 1899, the first juvenile court in the world was established in Illinois, USA, emphasizing education and rescue for juvenile offenders. At that time, the trial records and results were kept confidential to avoid labeling minors as criminals, so that they could resume normal life after adulthood without being affected by their past mistakes. This reflected the early concept of "protecting light crime groups' future."
After World War II, under the backdrop of welfare states, many European countries began to reflect on the drawbacks of harsh punishments and gradually accepted the trend of "decriminalization" or non-criminalization of minor crimes. For example, the Netherlands no longer regarded possession of small amounts of soft drugs as a criminal offense in the 1970s, while the UK abolished the criminal penalty for homosexual behavior in 1967. These measures reflected changes in social values: for certain minor violations, more emphasis was placed on education and correction rather than lifelong punishment.
In the 1970s, the Netherlands no longer regarded possession of small amounts of soft drugs as a criminal offense. Photo Source
Under the influence of the "light crime and light punishment" ideology, Europe and America gradually developed the legal practice of sealing criminal records (Expungement/Sealing), whose core logic is to give people who committed minor crimes "a second chance".
A typical example is the UK's 1974 "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act," which stipulated that after a certain "recovery period," some criminal records could be deemed "spent." At that point, individuals were legally considered to have reformed themselves and did not need to report their minor criminal records in most cases when applying for jobs, insurance, or education. The main purpose of this measure was to support those with a criminal record to reintegrate into society and allow those who truly repented not to bear permanent stigma.
Similarly, the United States began allowing the removal or sealing of criminal records in certain situations since the late 20th century, especially for juvenile offenders or minor crimes. Various states in the US have successively introduced "second chance" laws: on one hand, if juvenile crimes meet certain conditions (such as minor offenses, probation sentences, etc.), they can apply for record sealing after reaching adulthood; on the other hand, for adult minor crimes, some states allow the records to be sealed by court approval after meeting certain years of no further offenses. Its legal philosophy is rooted in American traditional values: on one hand, emphasizing individual freedom and privacy rights, on the other hand, believing that those who have reformed should not be permanently labeled.
European civil law countries have developed criminal record management systems within the framework of privacy and personality rights, such as Germany's "Federal Central Criminal Records Act," which distinguishes the storage periods and usage scopes of records of different severity levels, and seals or restricts the use of minor criminal records upon meeting certain conditions.
Another important factor driving the reform of light crime and record sealing in European and American countries is political and social considerations.
Taking the United States as an example, the continuously rising number of people with criminal records in the late 20th century led to serious social problems. Data shows that about one-third of adults in the United States (over 100 million people) have some kind of criminal record. A large number of people with a criminal record face restrictions in employment, housing, and other areas after release, making it difficult to reintegrate into society, thus increasing the possibility of reoffending. Civil rights organizations and community advocates then launched the "Clean Slate" movement, calling for legislative automatic clearance of minor criminal records.
Since 2018, this wave has made progress in several U.S. states: including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Utah, and more than a dozen other states have passed laws automatically sealing criminal records. New York State's proposal stipulates that the criminal records of those convicted of minor crimes will be automatically sealed three years after the completion of the sentence, and those convicted of major crimes will be automatically sealed seven years after the completion of the sentence. In addition, those registered as sex offenders, those with unresolved cases, or those on probation or parole are not subject to the clearance mechanism.
These laws often receive cross-party support - the liberal side advocates correcting excessive punishment, eliminating discrimination, and implementing the concept of equality, while the conservative side also realizes that reducing the social burden helps release labor force and reduce recidivism costs. This "left-right consensus" accelerated the formation of the U.S. minor criminal record clearance system.
In addition, some political figures became representative promoters of the reform: for example, the famous Kamala Harris, when she served as California's attorney general, California passed Proposition 47 in 2014, downgrading theft of less than $950 to a misdemeanor.
In 2010, Harris served as the California state attorney general. Photo Source: Associated Press
In Europe, proponents include some judicial figures and social scholars, who call for the establishment of a criminal record sealing mechanism on the grounds of human rights and social harmony, with typical arguments being respect for personality rights and reduction of recidivism.
It is also impossible to ignore the cases in Western countries where the exposure of criminal records in history led to tragedies or controversies, such as the stigmatization caused by the leakage of minor offenders' records, and the reoffense of sex offenders after release prompting legislators to reflect on record management. Therefore, the formation of the Western model is driven by both idealistic value orientations and practical problem orientation: giving opportunities to those who have reformed, while responding to public concerns about safety. This complex balance shaped the unique path of the "light crime + record sealing" system.
It can be said that the light crime governance and record sealing system in European and American countries is the product of the interaction of their legal traditions, social conditions, and political choices. It is not a tolerance of crime, but a new approach to prevent crime by reducing criminal stigma and promoting re-socialization within a specific range. This model has its rationality, but also has obvious structural risks. When we draw lessons from it, we need to view and understand it more rigorously, comprehensively, systematically, and dialectically.
Controversies over safety and governance in the Western model
Although the "light crime + record sealing" model was initially intended to be tolerant and progressive, the actual experiences of many countries in Europe and America have also exposed structural defects in public safety and social control. These defects have led to disputes and even policy reflections. The main issues are reflected in several aspects.
First, the weakening of legal deterrence and the rise of public safety risks.
Being overly lenient towards minor crimes may lead to the "broken window effect," encouraging offenders to take chances.
For example, in California, USA, after lowering the theft of items worth less than $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor, there were a series of open theft incidents: thieves walked into stores during the day and took goods freely, as the amount did not exceed the limit and did not receive heavy punishment. In cities like San Francisco, "flash robbery" cases occurred frequently in recent years, with property crime rates increasing by 20.7% (2019-2022). Police and business people have blamed this on the 47th bill "giving wrongdoers a green light."
"Zero-dollar shopping"
It can be seen that excessive leniency towards minor crimes may weaken the deterrence of potential offenders, leading to deteriorating public security. Some American city voters have dismissed prosecutors who advocated for lenient law enforcement due to deteriorating public security, showing the public's backlash against declining sense of security. This was clearly reflected in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 U.S. presidential elections.
There are similar debates in some European countries: due to the "criminal record list" system, some repeat offenders obtained sensitive positions after their records became invalid, causing public concern about regulatory loopholes. These cases show that without supporting controls, light crime policies may bring additional public safety risks.
Second, setbacks in drug control and amplification of social problems.
In the field of drug violations, some of the more progressive policies in the West have triggered counter-effects.
A typical example is Oregon, USA: in 2020, a referendum passed the decriminalization of drug possession, no longer treating the possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine, and other hard drugs as a criminal offense, but only imposing fines and counseling treatment. However, after three years of implementation, the results were poor. Police issued about 6,000 drug-related fines, but fewer than 100 people actually called the hotline and completed addiction assessment. During the same period, the number of drug overdose deaths in Oregon increased by 23%, reaching an annual average of 1,500, ranking among the highest in the country.
Worse still, contrary to the original intention, a large number of addicts appeared openly injecting drugs on the streets of major cities, with syringes and feces scattered, merchants complaining, and local residents describing "these addicts actually have more rights than us." Even people who supported the bill changed their views, with a survey showing that 51% of people believed the bill had negative effects. Even the state legislators who initially voted in favor admitted that in the context of the rampant fentanyl epidemic leading to a sharp increase in national drug deaths, it was necessary to "re-examine" this policy.
Thus, in high-risk areas such as drug control, a "lenient" policy can easily backfire. Therefore, these obvious pitfalls should become priority areas for effective avoidance in practice.
Third, the risk of recidivism and the difficulties of supervision.
The public security violation record sealing system was originally intended to help those who have reformed integrate into society, but for those prone to recidivism or with potential violent tendencies, it may lower early warning.
Western countries have also recognized this issue in practice, often setting sealing prohibitions or additional conditions for certain offenses. Many states in the United States explicitly prohibit the clearance of sexual offenses, serious violent crimes; even in "clean slate" bills, registered sex offenders, those on probation, are excluded from the automatic sealing category. Germany divides minor criminal records into two categories: "shallow sealing" and "deep sealing", with stricter sealing restrictions for recidivists and sex offender records. These measures are to balance the provision of opportunities and the prevention of risks.
However, even with these precautions, there are still some cases of sealed previous records leading to reoffenses, causing public shock. There was a teenager in the United States who committed a serious assault at the age of 17, but because of the sealed juvenile record, he obtained a license in a certain industry without obstacles, eventually committing another crime, which led to public questioning "why his previous record was hidden." In the UK, there was also a case where a teacher with a prior record of sexual abuse was re-employed because the record had "expired", and later was found to have again abused students. Such cases have caused social doubts about whether the sealing system is tolerating a few habitual offenders.
Therefore, the long-standing controversy surrounding criminal record sealing is: how to distinguish between "the majority of those who have reformed" and "a few habitual offenders", neither denying the purpose of the system because of a few bad apples nor letting high-risk individuals slip through because of excessive leniency. This is actually a "trolley problem", and Western countries are still adjusting and exploring this issue to this day.
Fourth, public perception and social trust issues.
Crime record sealing also brings an implicit social impact, that is, public safety and trust in the judiciary.
In Western societies that emphasize privacy and personal rights, many ordinary citizens agree to give minor offenders a chance and do not discriminate against their past. However, when the sealing system leads to negative events being reported, public opinion often fluctuates.
On one hand, beneficiaries, especially those with a criminal record and their families, naturally support this system, viewing it as a more humane judicial approach; on the other hand, some ordinary people may think they have a "right to know" about the criminal records of people around them, especially in professions that require public trust such as teachers, drivers, and medical staff. If, because of the sealing regulations, relevant units cannot find someone's criminal record during recruitment, and then problems occur, the public often directs their anger at the system itself. In countries like New Zealand that have implemented "identity purification" plans, there have been media criticisms of the government "cleansing criminals." In the United States, news agencies and victim organizations oppose excessive sealing, believing that public records help the public self-protect.
It can be seen that crime record sealing is not without dissent in the West, and it requires transparent rules and sufficient communication to gain social trust. And if it is not implemented effectively, society may pay a significant price.
The risks of transplanting models under Sino-Western differences
If China simply copies the Western "light crime + record sealing" model, it may face unsuitability, as there are fundamental differences between China and the West in terms of public security environment, social structure, grassroots governance capabilities, and risk tolerance.
To put it bluntly, we don't have the "low human rights advantage" of the West, meaning that the general public is willing to bear the losses in terms of life and social welfare resulting from policy errors. There is no such soil in China, so when discussing transplantation and application, we must pay attention to this fundamental difference, and not just focus on some abstract concepts.
Specifically, the first is the difference in public security situation and safety challenges.
China's population size and social complexity are unprecedented globally, and any small public security issue will accumulate into a huge absolute number. Moreover, China is currently in a period of social transformation, and the pressure to maintain social stability is already very great. Although the proportion of serious criminal offenses has decreased and the proportion of minor crimes has increased in recent years, reflecting an overall improvement in public security, this does not mean we can be complacent. In fact, the current number of minor crimes in China is still very large, and some features exist that are not present in the West, such as public security issues among migrant populations and frequent cases in urban-rural junction areas.
If the policy is too lenient before the safety situation is stable, it may trigger hidden risks. That is to say, China must not recklessly experiment with high-risk policies at the cost of its precious public security.
Second, the differences in social organization structure and interpersonal relationships.
Western societies are generally more atomized, with strong individual privacy and rights awareness, and weaker constraints from communities and families on individual behavior. Therefore, the West relies more on legal systems to make "minimum corrections," and gives opportunities to those who have reformed more through personal self-discipline. While Chinese society has different organizational characteristics: families and units play an important role in personal reform, and community grassroots organizations have deep involvement in the assistance and control of key personnel. If we copy the complete confidentiality model of the West, it may instead weaken the traditionally effective supervision and reform functions of our social structure.
Our community correction and grassroots police stations often rely on neighbor supervision to monitor drug users and assist released prisoners in finding employment. This mass prevention and control method is a strength of China's social governance. However, if all records are sealed "one-size-fits-all," the community and employers cannot take any preventive measures due to lack of knowledge, and by the time the problem becomes evident, it's already too late.
Because of the clear boundaries between people in Western societies, they may accept this "unknown" state and leave the risk entirely to government agencies to manage. But in China, the public is more accustomed to relying on community networks to jointly prevent risks. It can be said that the participation mechanisms in crime governance between China and the West are vastly different, and blindly copying the Western model may weaken China's existing governance advantages.
Third, the differences in grassroots governance capacity and resource levels.
The effective operation of the criminal record sealing system in the West largely depends on a complete supporting system, including advanced background review technology, developed social services, adequate psychological correction resources, and strict law enforcement integrity systems, etc. For example, they have professional databases and review processes to ensure that even if records are sealed, law enforcement agencies can quickly access previous criminal information when needed; meanwhile, there are a large number of civilian organizations providing job training and psychological counseling to help people with a criminal record smoothly reintegrate into society.
However, the reality of China's grassroots governance is: regional development is unbalanced, and some grassroots police stations and communities may not have the capability to connect to complex information systems or conduct detailed tracking and assistance. If the records are sealed hastily, it may result in a situation where "it can be controlled but not seen": although the public security system retains the records, in specific matters, grassroots officials and relevant units may find it difficult to query, thereby reducing actual regulatory efficiency. On the other hand, China's social workers, psychological counseling resources, etc., are relatively scarce, and some places still struggle to provide sufficient reintegration support for those with a criminal record. If only administrative orders are used to seal the criminal records, but there is no subsequent guidance and supervision, it is both不利于 avoiding recidivism and difficult to reassure the public.
In other words, when China wants to replicate, learn from, or implement a new model, it should consider whether the current conditions can provide sufficient support.
Finally, the differences in risk tolerance and policy evaluation standards.
Chinese society has consistently high demands for public safety and stability, and the public generally expects the social security to continue improving, rather than allowing the majority to bear additional risks for the benefit of a few. This difference in risk preference means that policymakers must be more cautious in balancing. Of course, concerns that may endanger public safety are often exaggerated in public opinion and face severe scrutiny.
Improving record management based on China's national conditions
Deep differences in public security environment, social organization, grassroots capacity, and risk tolerance between China and the West make the European and American "light crime + criminal record sealing" system unable to be directly transplanted to China. Therefore, we should rationally recognize the particularity of the European and American experience, and adhere to the principle of taking our own needs as the main focus and adapting to local conditions when drawing lessons. From the existing public materials, we can obtain some references and suggestions.
First, carefully define the scope and exceptions of sealing.
Clearly, only minor violations/crimes with little harm can be considered for sealing, and it is strictly prohibited to include serious crimes, especially common crimes that seriously affect public security. At the same time, for individuals with a tendency to commit crimes repeatedly or involved in special sensitive fields (such as sexual abuse, drug-related), even if their previous punishment is not severe, the sealing should be used cautiously. For background checks of individuals engaged in special occupations (such as early childhood education, medical care, security), and situations such as investigation by public security, prosecution, and national security, exception query mechanisms should be set up to ensure that they can be used when needed. By precisely defining the scope and exceptions, we can protect the rights of those who have reformed while ensuring that the system does not become a loophole for extreme cases.
Photo Source: CCTV News
Second, establish a reasonable sealing review period.
Avoid the simple practice of "immediate sealing" and instead set different observation periods according to the nature of the behavior and the risk of recidivism. Additionally, it is possible to consider the concept of phased sealing, starting with "shallow sealing" and then progressing to "deep sealing." During the review period, public security judicial organs and community correction departments should strengthen follow-up and support. At the same time, if new criminal activities are discovered, the sealing qualification should be revoked according to law, and the previous records should be unsealed for reference in sentencing.
Third, adopt a "gradual" reform strategy, pilot and promote in a step-by-step manner.
For example, it can first try in the field of minors, evaluate and improve the execution details. Then, pilot the administrative penalty records in economically developed areas with good public security conditions, summarize the experience. For issues related to drug-related crimes, which are quite special in China's history and reality, more caution is needed, as the goal of governance is to better manage society, not to let the sense of security of the majority be universally impacted and damaged. Then, there should be corresponding procedures for notification mechanisms and feedback evaluation mechanisms to avoid the problem of "letting go and chaos."
The last point is to uphold the public safety bottom line.
From the perspective of China, regardless of how the system is innovated, public safety and social stability must be placed at the forefront, and it must not take the risk of the safety of the majority for the opportunity of a few. Therefore, when implementing record sealing, safety assurance measures should be established, such as information traceability for inspection, linkage early warning mechanisms, and strict confidentiality obligations.
In summary, major decisions involving public safety should be guided by a bottom-line thinking throughout the implementation of the system. Only with a solid public safety bottom line can this humanitarian concern truly have significance.
Conclusion: Rationally draw lessons from international experience, uphold the Chinese safety bottom line
In summary, the "light crime + criminal record sealing" model in European and American countries originated from special historical and social contexts, and although there are things worth learning, when introducing similar systems, we must maintain a cautious and pragmatic attitude: experience is not a system, popularity does not equal applicability. As the central decision emphasizes, we should advance judicial reform to serve the fundamental goal of safeguarding public safety and promoting social harmony, and not ignore long-term stability for the sake of temporary novelty.
Currently, China is striving to build a higher-level rule of law country, and we welcome all beneficial international experiences, but we should also have institutional confidence and determination. We need to explore our own solutions, reflecting the wisdom of "moderation and severity combined, virtue and law complement each other" in Chinese legal culture, as well as the high requirements of the modern governance system for safety and order.
China's path must start from China's actual conditions, proceed steadily, give the repentant a new sun, and protect the blue sky above the 1.4 billion people. As some industry professionals have pointed out, although minor crime governance is an international phenomenon, it should mainly be based on the situation of minor crimes in China, gradually forming an independent criminal law response knowledge system and theoretical foundation. In terms of the setting of limits and specific understanding, it should be based on Chinese criminal law and theory as the basic reference, and proceed in an orderly manner under the premise of legality.
The future of criminal record management reform will still be a dynamic balance process. We should continuously monitor the effectiveness of the system's operation, and adjust and improve it in a timely manner according to the situation of public security and public demand. In this process, adhering to the principle of putting people's safety at the center is an unshakable principle. Only by ensuring public safety and social confidence can any reform benefits truly benefit the people and consolidate the rule of law.
This article is an exclusive article by Observer Network. The content of the article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Without authorization, it is not allowed to be reprinted, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow the WeChat official account of Observer Network, guanchacn, to read interesting articles every day.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7579053129115746852/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.