The Case of Burglary into A's House

A burglar broke into A's house and wounded A. A cried out for help, but the four neighbors, as well as the neighborhood heads (dian and lao), were all absent and did not hear the call. The legal question was whether the neighbors and the neighborhood heads should be held criminally liable for failing to respond. The Qin legal authorities answered that since the neighbors were truly not present, they should not be punished. However, the dian and lao, even if absent, should still be held liable. This case illustrates the strict liability placed on local officials under Qin law for maintaining public order and responding to crimes within their jurisdiction.

The neighbors were acquitted due to verified absence. The neighborhood heads (dian and lao) were found guilty and punished despite their absence, emphasizing their non-delegable supervisory duty.

Whether neighbors and local officials could be excused from liability for failing to rescue or respond to a crime in progress when they were absent from the scene and unaware of the incident.

The case reinforced the Qin dynasty's strict collective responsibility system, clarifying that ordinary residents could escape liability if genuinely absent, while local officials bore an absolute duty of vigilance. It highlighted the legalist principle of holding officials strictly accountable for public security, influencing later Chinese administrative law.