Analysis of the Problems in Rural Public Security Mediation and Suggestions for Countermeasures

Public security mediation is an important mediation system with Chinese characteristics established in the 1987 “Regulations on Public Security Administration Punishments”, and the 2005 “Law on Public Security Administration Punishments” continued to recognize the legal status of this system. To this day, this system has been implemented in our country for more than 20 years. Over the past 20-plus years, under the framework of the legal system for public security mediation, public security organs have promptly mediated and handled a large number of public security cases, resolved many social disputes, and played a positive role in preventing the intensification of social conflicts and maintaining social stability. According to statistics from the Ministry of Public Security, from 2008 to 2013, among the disputes handled by grassroots public security organs across the country, 58% were handled through public security mediation, 33% were handled through public security penalties, and 8% were converted into criminal cases.① It can be seen that public security mediation accounted for the majority. The statistical data of the Ministry of Public Security fully demonstrate that public security mediation has played a relatively large role in resolving social disputes and is a commonly used case-handling method by the broad ranks of grassroots public security police.

However, because grassroots public security police in rural areas are not very clear about the legal norms of public security mediation and have different understandings of some legal terms, such as “civil disputes” and “minor circumstances” in the “Law on Public Security Administration Punishments”, this has led in practice to the abuse of the power of public security mediation, giving rise to problems such as using public security mediation to replace public security penalties, compulsory mediation, arbitrarily expanding the scope of mediation, and conducting public security mediation beyond the scope of authority. The emergence of these problems has a negative effect of abusing and deconstructing the public security mediation system. Therefore, it is necessary to continue to improve the relevant legal systems and give play to the positive role of public security mediation in resolving rural disputes and building a new socialist countryside.

Legal Application of Public Security Mediation

As a mediation system, public security mediation is relatively clearly stipulated in the “Law on Public Security Administration Punishments” with regard to the scope of cases to which it applies: “acts violating public security administration such as fighting and brawling or damaging another person's property caused by civil disputes, where the circumstances are relatively minor.” Subsequently, the 2006 “Provisions on Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Administrative Cases” issued by the Ministry of Public Security refined the “Law on Public Security Administration Punishments”, confirming by enumeration 8 types of cases belonging to the above-mentioned “acts of fighting and brawling and damaging another person's property caused by civil disputes”, namely cases of beating another person, intentional injury, insult, defamation, false accusation and framing, intentional damage of property, interference with another person's normal life, and infringement of privacy, and after the 2012 amendment, “illegal intrusion into another person's residence” was added. In addition, in 2006 the Ministry of Public Security issued the following: “For public security cases such as making noise, sending messages, and keeping animals that interfere with another person's normal life, allowing animals to intimidate others, insult, defamation, false accusation and framing, infringement of privacy, and taking a motor vehicle without permission, public security organs may all mediate and handle them.” The above laws and regulations clearly stipulate the scope of application of public security mediation, and also stipulate the parties subject to its application. The application of public security mediation by public security organs is mostly limited to relatives and friends, neighbors, colleagues, and students, and may also apply between citizens and legal persons or other civil subjects in production and business activities. However, the “Provisions on Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Administrative Cases”, the “Provisions on Public Security Mediation Work of Public Security Organs”, and the “Provisions on Public Security Organs Handling Injury Cases” also clearly stipulate circumstances in which public security mediation does not apply, such as hiring someone to injure another, gang fights, mass brawls, repeatedly injuring another person's body, repeatedly committing acts violating public security administration, the parties clearly expressing that they do not want mediation, the parties committing acts violating public security during the mediation process, and cases involving organized crime, among others.

The above affirmative and negative provisions provide a complete legal basis for public security mediation. In the process of applying public security mediation, especially in the application by grassroots public security organs to rural disputes, public security organs should strictly follow the provisions of laws and regulations; otherwise, it will cause abuse of public security mediation, which is not conducive to maintaining social stability and resolving contradictions and disputes.

Problems Existing in the Current Application of Rural Public Security Mediation

The scope of application of public security mediation is continuously expanding. With the establishment and improvement of the 110 alarm mechanism and the in-depth development of mass line work in recent years, “when in difficulty, find the police” has become a basic concept and behavioral habit for many people. As a result, whenever people encounter difficulties, they dial the 110 alarm hotline, and the 110 command center transfers the dispute to the grassroots police station, which makes a large number of civil disputes become matters handled by police stations. From the perspective of legal application, civil disputes are not originally within the jurisdiction of police stations, but once the 110 command center transfers the dispute to a police station, the police station must accept it. Therefore, grassroots public security organs not only have to handle contradictions and disputes formed by violations of public security, but also need to spend a great deal of energy handling civil disputes outside their jurisdiction, which adds enormous pressure to police stations. According to statistics from the Ministry of Public Security, at a rural grassroots police station, 70% of the police force each day is receiving reports from the public concerning civil disputes and requests for assistance, seriously affecting the normal function of grassroots public security organs in combating criminal offenses and maintaining public security.② At the same time, we should also see that, according to the “Law on Public Security Administration Punishments”, police stations have no jurisdiction over general civil disputes not caused by violations of public security. Forcibly intervening in mediation lacks legal support, and the public will not be convinced, resulting in mediation lacking legal effect and also giving rise to the suspicion that rural grassroots police stations are enforcing the law beyond their authority.

⟦NL> Inaccurate grasp of the “degree” of public security mediation. Although current laws and regulations clearly provide affirmative enumeration and negative exclusion regarding the scope of application and objects of application of public security mediation, we should see that in recent years rural disputes have become increasingly complex, and various new types of cases have emerged one after another. Is there a middle zone between the affirmative enumeration and negative exclusion in the law? For example, acts violating public security arising from rural land expropriation and demolition disputes - from the perspective of legal provisions, it is difficult to determine whether they fall within the scope of public security mediation. When the dispute is between farmers and a demolition company, it should fall within the scope of public security mediation; when the dispute is between farmers and the government, it should not fall within the scope of public security mediation. Therefore, the middle zone is difficult to grasp. In addition, the issue of “circumstances” stipulated in laws and regulations is also a question of “degree.” Whether circumstances are relatively minor or minor, the levels of development, ways of life, and cultural traditions of rural areas differ from place to place. An act may constitute relatively minor circumstances in one place, but in another rural area it may constitute relatively serious circumstances. If this is not grasped well in practice, the effect of applying public security mediation will be greatly reduced.

The quality of some police officers is difficult to adapt to the requirements of mediation. At present, social contradictions in rural areas are becoming increasingly complex, and the types, forms, and contents of disputes also show a trend of diversification and integration, which places higher demands on the quality of the police officers presiding over public security mediation. From the perspective of legal relations, rural public security disputes blend multiple legal relations such as civil, administrative, and economic ones. The purpose of public security mediation is to resolve disputes. Therefore, public security mediation attaches great importance to the use of techniques, strategies, and laws and regulations, and mediation is relatively difficult. However, many police officers at grassroots police stations, especially those in remote areas, have not received specialized technical training, or lack relevant legal knowledge, or lack mediation skills, or have no experience in mass line work, resulting in poor mediation results. Analysis data from the Ministry of Public Security on accepted public complaint cases show that the complaint rate against grassroots police officers in rural areas is the highest, reaching 90%. The reasons for complaints show that most farmers complain because police officers have low quality, rough and overbearing attitudes, lack mediation experience, and do not pay attention to mediation methods.

The mediation procedure has become complicated. The reason mediation is mediation rather than litigation lies in its simple procedure and relatively low evidentiary requirements, making it easy for the public to accept. In the “Norms for Public Security Mediation Work of Public Security Organs”, the Ministry of Public Security clearly stipulates that for some cases with minor circumstances, clear facts, and no involvement in compensation for expenses, on-site mediation may be conducted and no case file may be required. But in reality, many police officers complicate the mediation procedure. Many cases that could originally be mediated on site are not mediated on site; many cases with clear facts and clear causal relationships require the parties to provide evidence. For rural parties, the reason they choose mediation is that their ability to produce evidence is relatively weak and their awareness of evidence is not strong.③ In practice, the complicated mediation procedures stipulated by many rural grassroots police stations not only increase the burden on police officers, but are also not conducive to the application of public security mediation in rural disputes.

The legal effect of public security mediation agreements is low. The “Law on Public Security Administration Punishments” does not confer legal binding force on public security mediation agreements, and there is no substantive constraint on both parties. Even if one party goes back on their word, they will not bear any adverse consequences. In rural public security disputes, the phenomenon of parties arbitrarily going back on their word is relatively prominent, which damages the authority of the law, and at the same time prolongs the time police officers spend handling cases and increases the workload of grassroots police stations. In practice, many rural parties, after a mediation agreement has been reached and performed, go back on their word and generally demand re-mediation or continued public security penalties. However, a public security mediation agreement is an agreement voluntarily reached by the parties, and its effect should be compared to that of an ordinary civil contract. If the mediation agreement has already been performed, then for the police station, the case has already been closed, and re-mediation or punishment cannot be carried out again. But many farmers do not understand the provisions of the law, and if their performance requirements are not satisfied, they will petition everywhere, causing a negative impact on social stability.