The Qianke system in China: Disorganisation, discrimination and dispersion
| Published date | 01 September 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/17488958231161436 |
| Author | Enshen Li |
| Date | 01 September 2023 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958231161436
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2023, Vol. 23(4) 568 –587
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17488958231161436
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
The Qianke system in China:
Disorganisation, discrimination
and dispersion
Enshen Li
The University of Queensland, Australia
Abstract
In the Chinese criminal legal system, the term ‘Qianke’ (前科) is conceptually interchangeable with
the idea of a criminal record that lists one’s past crimes, convictions and sentences. In this article,
by situating Qianke within the context of China’s distinct criminal justice and social governance
ethos, my central claim is that the status quo of the Qianke system features disorganised,
discriminatory and dispersed modes of social and penal controls. Specifically, the management
of Qianke represents an uncoordinated structure in which criminal record data are regulated by
divergent rules and institutions but remain under the complete control of the state. Although
largely inaccessible to the general public, the discriminatory effect of Qianke is sweeping. By and
large, it is characterised by the imposition of restraints on not only individuals with a criminal
record but also their families in accessing equal opportunities in education, employment and
public services. This distinctive form of state discrimination is informed by an emerging concern
with risk prevention within Chinese criminal justice policy which is further enhanced by Qianke’s
orchestrated penetration into the social system (e.g. via the Social Credit System). Moving from
the criminal legal system to the social system, Qianke also serves as a tool of control aimed at
managing individuals with a criminal history in a way that is conducive to the state’s prioritised
governance agenda.
Keywords
China, criminal records, penal control, preventive justice, Qianke, Social Credit System
Introduction
The nexus between overcriminalisation and overenforcement, recorded since at least the
1970s in Western jurisdictions (Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2013; Wacquant, 2009), has also
long been a defining feature of the criminal justice system in the People’s Republic of
Corresponding author:
Enshen Li, School of Law, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, OLD 4072, Australia.
Email: e.li@law.uq.edu.au
1161436CRJ0010.1177/17488958231161436Criminology & Criminal JusticeLi
research-article2023
Special Issue: Collateral Consequences of Criminal Records
Li 569
China (‘China’). Not only has the number of chargeable offences been on the rise since
the promulgation of the first Criminal Law (‘CL’) in 1979, but the incarcerated popula-
tion has also increased, with the number of people held in prison and under other forms
of detention (e.g. pre-trial detention) believed to be second only to the United States
(over 2 million vs 1.69 million) as the highest worldwide (World Prison Brief, 2021).
Besides the increase in the prison population, as an inevitable corollary of this trend
towards penal intensification, the number of individuals with Qianke has skyrocketed
across Chinese society.
The term ‘Qianke’ (前科) is conceptually interchangeable with the idea of having a
rap sheet − a criminal history record − which refers to the official file kept by govern-
ment authorities of one’s past crimes, convictions and sentences. As a long under-defined
quasi-legal term, Qianke is typically thought to encompass several key elements, namely:
(1) it is derived from a criminal conviction handed down by a court; (2) it leaves out law-
breaking records arising from minor transgressions which are not deemed criminally
punishable; and (3) it is grounded on the offender serving the sentence in part or in full
(Yu, 2010). In short, Qianke is the criminal history information derived from offenders
being convicted and sentenced in court with a record of sentence completion or early
release.
There is a widely held belief that a criminal record serves as an extension of criminal
punishment (Corda, 2016; Jacobs, 2015). Typically, having a crime on an individual’s
record can continue to impact their life, even long after the sentence has been served in
full. This thus raises serious questions about how Qianke is perceived and regulated by
Chinese authorities to reduce the marginalisation of ex-offenders, and what the implica-
tions are for ex-offenders in the post-sentence/re-entry phase.
This article focusses on China’s Qianke system and its operations. By situating Qianke
within the context of China’s idiosyncratic criminal justice and social governance ethos,
my central claim is that the status quo of Qianke features disorganised, discriminatory
and dispersed modes of social and penal controls. Part I highlights how Qianke is associ-
ated with a data-keeping system used within the criminal justice system to record one’s
criminal history. It involves a primitive registration database with disparate state actors
dictating the storage and dissemination of criminal records within their own provinces.
This is not least because the regulatory craft of Qianke is scattered across an eclectic mix
of statutes and rules in the absence of a coherent and coordinated framework informing
practices on the ground. Part II posits that, while largely inaccessible to the public,
Qianke tends to generate a hugely discriminatory effect, which is even more conspicuous
than the one produced by criminal records in the United States and other Western juris-
dictions. Apart from well-documented biases regarding policing and sentencing, dis-
crimination against ex-offenders in China is intensified by two characteristic traits of
Qianke. First, Qianke imposes a legal duty on ex-offenders to disclose their criminal
records when trying to secure employment or when joining the army. Second, Qianke
justifies the imposition of restraints on not only ex-offenders but also their family mem-
bers when it comes to accessing equal opportunities in education, employment and pub-
lic services. These procedures and practices substantially amount to systematic
state-imposed discrimination. Part III contends that the discrimination produced by
Qianke is compounded by the penetration of criminal history information into the social
To continue reading
Request your trial