In Depth: China’s New Law on Minor Offense Records Sparks Debate on Second Chances

The new amendment to China’s Public Security Administration Punishments Law, set to take effect on January 1, 2026, has triggered extensive public debate about striking the right balance between social reintegration and public safety, specifically concerning the sealing of records for minor, non-criminal infractions [para. 1][para. 2]. The provision (Article 136) mandates sealing records of minor violations, making them inaccessible to the general public and most organizations, except certain state agencies and entities with legal authorization, such as kindergartens performing background checks [para. 3].

Under China’s legal system, minor administrative offenses—ranging from brawling to petty theft—are typically addressed through warnings, fines, or short detentions rather than criminal prosecution. The law governing these penalties, enacted in 2005, just underwent its first major revision after a two-year legislative process that ended in June. Notably, whereas the initial 2023 draft only covered offenders under 18, the final law also protects adult offenders, expanding its scope without a subsequent round of public consultation—leading to public surprise and debate [para. 4][para. 5].

This debate, widely discussed on social media, is part of a broader shift in China’s legal philosophy from heavy punitive measures toward a more rehabilitative model. Critical questions have emerged, such as whether sealing a record is functionally tantamount to erasing it, and if the policy could allow drug users and other offenders evasion from necessary scrutiny [para. 6].

In practice, the sealing of such records is not a novel innovation but an evolution: for over a decade, Beijing’s police have ceased issuing certificates of “no illegal record” for administrative violations, providing only criminal record checks instead. This de facto privacy applied to minor violations, leaving only state organs with access [para. 8][para. 9]. According to legal experts like Wang Yu and academics such as Zhao Hong, making this longstanding practice explicit and nationwide is intended to reduce long-term discrimination, aligning with the legal principle of proportionality [para. 10][para. 11].

The legislative change is consistent with recent top-level policy directives. The Communist Party’s Third Plenum decision aimed to establish broad-based sealing of minor offense records, citing human rights improvements. Courts report a decline in serious crime but a rise in minor violations; sealing records is viewed as critical for allowing individuals to reintegrate into society without disproportionate lifelong consequences [para. 12][para. 13].

Public concerns persist about possible “risk invisibility,” particularly regarding potential employment by people with histories of drug use. However, the law clarifies that “sealing” does not equate to expungement. Exceptions allow judicial and authorized supervisory agencies access for designated purposes, with confidentiality requirements [para. 14][para. 15][para. 16]. Sensitive roles—for example, educators at preschools—still require drug and violence background checks, which are unaffected by the new rules [para. 17][para. 18]. Experts like Han Ke advocate a more tiered sealing approach for drug offenses, rather than a blanket rule [para. 19][para. 20].

China’s harsh stance on drugs remains unchanged: trafficking is met with severe punishments, but personal use is classified as an administrative offense and managed as a public health issue, involving registration, surveillance, and sometimes compulsory treatment [para. 21][para. 22][para. 23][para. 24]. The drop in registered drug users by nearly 70%, from 2.35 million in 2015 to 747,000 in 2024, is credited to this robust system [para. 25].

Some continue to call for criminalizing all drug use, but major legislative reforms over the past two decades have intentionally taken a less punitive stance, recognizing users as both violators and patients. While public sentiment tends toward harsh punishment, judicial leaders increasingly favor restraint and proportionality to support long-term social reintegration [para. 26][para. 27][para. 28].