The Class Effects and National Security Tensions of the Criminal Record Sealing System: A Critique of Professor Yin Bo's Related Discourse at China University of Political Science and Law Based on Marxism and Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law

Article 136 of the newly revised Law of the People's Republic of China on Penalties for Public Order Violations establishes a ‘system for sealing public order violation records,’ with the provision that ‘records of public order violations such as drug use may be sealed’ provoking significant public debate. Against this backdrop, Professor Yin Bo of China University of Political Science and Law has repeatedly engaged with media interviews to offer a systematic theoretical defence of the sealing system. He emphasises its alignment with principles such as proportionality, protection of personal dignity, and the integration of punishment with education, positioning it as a preliminary exploration of a ‘criminal record expungement system’. This article, after comprehensively reviewing Yin Bo's principal arguments and the new legal provisions, introduces a Marxist legal analysis framework, Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law and the overall national security outlook, alongside formal logic and argumentation theory, to conduct a systematic critical analysis of his reasoning. The article contends: Firstly, from the perspective of class analysis and social structure, abstracting the sealing system as ‘universal rights protection’ risks obscuring its asymmetrical benefits within existing power structures. This may objectively reinforce ‘secondary protection’ for privileged classes while exacerbating relative insecurity among ordinary workers. Second, from the perspective of Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law and key discourses on drug control, the fundamental stance of ‘putting people at the centre’ and ‘zero tolerance for drugs’ demands a higher degree of preventive prudence in balancing rights protection and public security. Yet Yinbo's argumentation significantly underestimates the external risks associated with high-risk behaviours such as drug use. Third, logically, the argument confuses categories (‘minor offences—general offences—high-risk offences’), commits the fallacy of ‘generalising from the particular’ by extrapolating systemic overreach from individual injustices, and deliberately blurs the conceptual distinction between ‘record sealing’ and ‘expungement of criminal records’. This paper ultimately advocates: while upholding the positive role of the sealing system in ‘correcting labelling discrimination,’ it is imperative to strictly differentiate between types of conduct and occupational risks. A systemic combination of ‘tiered sealing + meticulous review + rigid accountability’ should be established to genuinely achieve an institutional equilibrium that both aligns with the direction of building a China governed by law and does not undermine the overall defence of the people's war on drugs and national security in the new era.