轻微犯罪如何定义、封存，最高法调研透露信号

Group 1 - The report emphasizes the need to establish a system for sealing minor crime records, with a consensus on using the severity of punishment as a basis for defining "minor crimes" [1][2] - There is significant disagreement on whether to use declared sentences or statutory sentences to define the boundary for minor crimes, and whether to differentiate between intentional and negligent crimes [2][4] - The report suggests that the definition of "minor crimes" should not simply equate to "light crimes + minor crimes," but should be limited to the least harmful portion of light crimes [2][4] Group 2 - Three main opinions exist regarding the specific criteria for defining minor crimes, with the first opinion suggesting that minor crimes should be defined as those resulting in a sentence of less than one year for intentional crimes or less than three years for negligent crimes [2][3] - The second opinion recommends that the definition of minor crimes should not exceed 30% of the total number of convicted criminals, suggesting a stricter limit of less than one year of imprisonment [3] - The third opinion proposes defining minor crimes as those resulting in detention or lighter penalties, which would only account for about 16.1% of the total [3] Group 3 - The research group leans towards the first opinion while considering the reasonable aspects of the other two opinions for legislative decision-making [4] - Certain specific crimes, such as those endangering national security, terrorism, sexual offenses, drug crimes, organized crime, and corruption, are generally agreed to be excluded from the sealing of criminal records [4] - The sealing of criminal records should be limited to first-time offenders, excluding repeat offenders and recidivists [4] Group 4 - The report discusses the content of sealing minor crime records, questioning whether only the "guilty verdict" should be sealed or if records from investigation, prosecution, and execution stages should also be included [5][6] - The research group supports the principle of sealing all related records if the criminal record is sealed, but acknowledges the challenges in fully applying this principle due to the public nature of legal proceedings [6] - It is suggested that a "no-criminal-record certificate" should be issued to eligible individuals, and that unauthorized inquiries into sealed records should not be permitted [6][7] Group 5 - The report recommends an "automatic sealing" model, where the sealing process is initiated automatically by relevant authorities once the conditions for sealing minor crime records are met [7] - The report also states that if specific circumstances arise after sealing, such as discovering additional crimes or reoffending, the sealing should be lifted or revoked [8] Group 6 - To promote the establishment of a minor crime record sealing system, the report suggests conducting pilot programs, potentially authorized by the National People's Congress [8] - The report recommends that pilot programs should focus on crimes with high case volumes and significant social impact, such as dangerous driving offenses, and should be implemented nationwide to ensure fairness [8][9] - The report highlights the need to clean up relevant laws and regulations, as there are numerous existing legal documents that may conflict with the goals of the sealing system [9][10]