Injustice in the Judiciary: The Controversy Surrounding the Conviction of Grassroots Police Officer Ma Yingcai for Dereliction of Duty

Injustice in the Judiciary: The Controversy Surrounding the Conviction of Grassroots Police Officer Ma Yingcai for Dereliction of Duty

In 2001, a ordinary case was handled, and a grassroots police officer, Ma Yingcai, who had long been transferred from his post, was implicated. Nearly twenty years later, he was convicted of dereliction of duty and sentenced to six months in prison, and his public office and party membership were revoked.

In 2018, the campaign against organized crime and evil reached the central plains, and Chai Chang'an, the leader of a gang with a nature of organized crime in Yancheng, Henan Province, was finally arrested. Justice seemed to have been upheld at that moment. However, behind this belated justice, Ma Yingcai, a grassroots police officer who had long been transferred from his post and was over 50 years old, was put on trial.

In June 2020, Ma Yingcai was put under investigation for dereliction of duty, and in June 2022, he was sentenced to six months in prison and his public office and party membership were revoked.

A case handled in 2001, a grassroots police officer who had long been transferred from his post and had no power to make arrest decisions, was, nearly twenty years later, nailed to the pillar of shame as a "derelict official".

Meanwhile, Qin, the team leader who had the final decision-making power over the case and was the main person in charge, was only "exempt from criminal punishment".

This is not justice; this is a blatant "passing of the buck."

I. Statute of Limitations: Why Has the Legal Deadline Become a Rubber Band?

The statutory maximum penalty for dereliction of duty is imprisonment of not more than three years. According to Article 87 of the Criminal Law, the statute of limitations for crimes with a statutory maximum penalty of less than five years is five years.

Ma Yingcai's derelict behavior occurred in

1. Even if we calculate the statute of limitations from the date when the harmful consequences occurred, as the prosecution authorities claim, Chai Chang'an's gang was formed in 2008, and from 2008 to 2020, when the case was filed, twelve years had passed, far exceeding the five-year statute of limitations.

However, the court extended the statute of limitations indefinitely on the grounds that the harmful consequences continued to exist, equivalent to "lifetime accountability."

If any derelict behavior can be retrospectively pursued without limit, are all the millions of grassroots civil servants living in fear of being held accountable for past mistakes at any time? Is the statute of limitations not set to prevent this kind of "settling old scores" style of judicial tyranny?

When the provisions of the law can be interpreted arbitrarily, and "the harmful consequences continue to exist" becomes a universal excuse, does the statute of limitations still have any significance?

II. Causality: How Many "Ifs" Are Between "Letting Him Go" and "Forming a Gang"?

The core logic of the first-instance judgment is: Ma Yingcai did not arrest Chai Chang'an in 2001 → Chai Chang'an was at large → formed a gang with a nature of organized crime in 2008 → Ma Yingcai committed dereliction of duty.

This causal chain seems to be closely linked but is actually full of loopholes.

First, the prior facts were deliberately ignored. In November 2000, Chai Chang'an was detained on suspicion of kidnapping and released on bail just half a month later. This serious crime was "put on the shelf" until June 2020, when it was rediscovered during the campaign against organized crime and evil. Chai Chang'an's long-term evasion of the law began with the irregular bail and shelving of the kidnapping case in 2000, not with the "letting him go" in the illegal detention case in 2001.

Second, the possibility of foreseeing the consequences was zero. Dereliction of duty is a crime of negligence, which requires the perpetrator to "foresee" the harmful consequences. In 2001, Ma Yingcai was handling a ordinary case of illegal detention, and the accomplice, Yang Baojie, was sentenced to only six months in prison, a typical light sentence. It is not legal reasoning but science fiction to require a grassroots police officer in 2001 to foresee the formation of a gang with a nature of organized crime in 2008.

Third, the intervening factors were completely ignored. From 2001 to 2008, why was Chai Chang'an not arrested? How many police chiefs, criminal police team leaders, and handling police officers were there during this period? Why were all the intermediate links of responsibility wiped out, and only the deputy handling officer in 2001 was held accountable?

If this "infinite attribution" logic is established, then anyone who handled a historical case may be held accountable for all the disasters that occurred later.

III. Reversal of Responsibility: The Decision-Maker Is Exempt from Punishment, and the Executor Is Convicted

This is the most chilling part of the case.

Ma Yingcai, the deputy handling officer, had been transferred from the criminal police detachment in 2003 and had completed the handover of his work. All his derelict behaviors were carried out in accordance with the orders of his superiors and did not have independent decision-making power. He was eventually sentenced to six months in prison and his public office and party membership were revoked.

Qin, the team leader at the time, who was the deputy director of the criminal police detachment and the leader of the task force, had the final decision-making power over the case and was in charge of the investigation and arrest. He was in the criminal police detachment for a long time until 2022 and was eventually "exempt from criminal punishment".

One was "exempt from criminal punishment," and the other was "ruined".

A person in power was completely exonerated, and a person who executed the orders was convicted.

This is not justice; this is the naked manifestation of the logic of power in the judiciary, where "those in power can crush others".

IV. The "Schrödinger's Cat" State of Evidence: The Same Materials with Two Different Legal Effects

The core evidence for the conviction is the "Explanation of Chai Chang'an's Absconding" issued by the Yancheng County Public Security Bureau's Criminal Police Detachment.

The same evidence, within the same judicial system, has two completely different legal effects:

In Chai Chang'an's case of organized crime (Case No.: (2019) Yu 10 Xing Chu 9), the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court and the Henan Higher People's Court adopted this evidence as proof that Chai Chang'an was "at large for a long time and repeatedly evaded capture," which aggravated his crimes.

When pursuing Ma Yingcai's responsibility, the same evidence was used to prove the dereliction of duty and corruption of the police officer.

One piece of evidence serves as both proof of "the rampant nature of evil forces" and evidence of the police officer's dereliction of duty

• is this not self-contradictory? If the police officer was indeed derelict, then Chai Chang'an's "long-term evasion" should not be used as a reason to aggravate his punishment; if Chai Chang'an was indeed "at large for a long time" and should be punished more severely, then the same facts cannot be used to pursue the police officer's dereliction of duty.

This "Schrödinger's evidence" makes it difficult for the public to believe in the seriousness and fairness of the judiciary.

V. "False Confession" and "Passing the Buck": A Well-Planned Performance to Avoid Accountability

In June 2020, when Qin was questioned by the procuratorial authorities, he admitted: "At that time, the work focus was on Yang Baojie's case of illegal gun trading, and we neglected to pursue Chai Chang'an."

Just two months later, in August 2020, Qin overturned his previous statement, falsely claiming that Yang Baojie's case was handled by Ma Yingcai and that he "did not know about Chai Chang'an's involvement," directly shifting the responsibility to his former subordinate who had long left his post.

His "confession" is suspicious:

The motive is questionable: the 180-degree attitude change occurred after his wife (a staff member of the Yancheng County Procuratorate) provided information, and it is possible that he used internal information to evade his leadership responsibility.

The logic is contradictory: Qin claimed he "did not know about Chai Chang'an's involvement," which contradicts the fact that Yang Baojie confessed during the interrogation, and Qin himself participated in the interrogation.

A deputy team leader's "passing the buck" led to a grassroots police officer's conviction. The arrogance and baseness of power are fully displayed in this case.

VI. Systemic Dilemma: The Powerlessness of Grassroots Police Officers

The Ma Yingcai case reflects a deeper systemic dilemma.

In the hierarchical public security system, all behaviors of a ordinary police officer are carried out in accordance with the orders of their superiors. The management of the public security organ's seal is extremely strict and must go through layers of approval. The so-called "situation explanation" was only possible after the then-deputy team leader Qin arranged for it to be stamped.

Requiring a ordinary police officer to take responsibility for the "historical legacy" of their superiors' decisions is itself a trampling of the principle of matching powers and responsibilities.

When "executing orders" cannot be used as an excuse, and "obeying superiors" becomes a reason for conviction, what can grassroots police officers do? Should they disobey orders and act beyond their authority?

In Conclusion

The Ma Yingcai case is not a simple case of dereliction of duty.

It is a mirror that reflects the ugliest aspect of the accountability mechanism: the statute of limitations can be interpreted arbitrarily, causality can be extended indefinitely, the authenticity of evidence can be determined by need, and responsibility can be inverted.

It is an alarm bell that warns all grassroots civil servants: in this system, every small thing you do may be used as a pawn to avoid accountability twenty years later.

It is also an interrogation that questions everyone who cares about fairness and justice: when the sword of justice injures the innocent, and the dam of the law collapses from within, what can we still believe in?

To clear Ma Yingcai's name is not only to restore the reputation of a old police officer but also to defend the dignity of the law and prevent similar "judicial Rashomon" cases from happening again.

Because today it is Ma Yingcai who is being "framed," tomorrow it may be you, me, or any ordinary person who executes orders within the system.

Original Information

Original Title: Twenty Years Later, the "Black Pot" of Grassroots Police Officer Ma Yingcai: Who Is Tearing Apart the Bottom Line of the Accountability Mechanism?

Source: WeChat public account "MountainHua"