What is the difference between malfeasance and dereliction of duty? 5. What is the difference betwee

1. The concept is different from the connection.

1. Dereliction of duty is the act of serious irresponsibility of state civil servants, resulting in certain losses to public property, the interests of the state and the people. Failure is the fault of the perpetrator, which leads to harmful consequences.

The perpetrator's subjective irresponsible negligence is inevitably related to specific harmful consequences, and is a loss caused by failure to perform or incorrect performance of duties, and the circumstances are serious, and disciplinary punishment is to be imposed.

2. Dereliction of duty refers to the behavior of state civil servants who take advantage of their positions, abuse the powers conferred by law, or violate laws and disciplines, or neglect their duties, or abuse their power for personal gain, causing damage to the interests of the state and the people.

Malfeasance is the abuse of power by a civil servant in the performance of his duties. There is an inevitable causal relationship between their abuse of power and failure to perform their obligations and serious harmful consequences. Dereliction of duty is an illegal act and constitutes a crime and must be punished by law, and those who violate party and government discipline must be disciplined.

2. The perpetrator's conduct is different.

1. Dereliction of duty stems from inaction. Inaction in the performance of duties refers to the failure to perform the obligations that a state civil servant should perform and can perform in his post or position in accordance with the powers conferred by laws and regulations. Such inaction has a negative character.

Because the actor should have done and could do it, but did not do it, resulting in negligence in the situation, failure in planning, and failure in command, causing harmful consequences, it is a dereliction of duty under the circumstances of serious irresponsibility.

2. Dereliction of duty is an act that is contrary to the performance of one's duties. State civil servants who are in certain positions and positions must perform the corresponding legal obligations. If the perpetrator goes beyond the provisions of laws and policies and produces acts that conflict with the laws and policies that he must abide by, that is, he does something that a civil servant should not do or is not allowed to do, and it is an act in the opposite direction to the performance of his obligations.

This leads to destruction, interference, and negative impact on the management of society and economic development, and produces harmful consequences, which is a dereliction of duty in the reverse direction.

3. The degree of harm of the consequences is different.

1. Where the degree of harm is slight, it may be regarded as a mistake, and the perpetrator is not to be held responsible. Where the degree of harm is serious and disciplinary responsibility can be pursued on the basis of Party discipline or government discipline provisions, it is a dereliction of duty.

2. The degree of harm is particularly serious, violates national laws, and should bear legal responsibility is dereliction of duty.

Difference: From the semantics, it can be seen that dereliction of duty is due to negligence and failure to perform duties well. Malfeasance is the act of knowing one's duties and being able to do so but failing to do so (more often than not, the other way around).

For example, if a police officer takes care of a prisoner and falls asleep and lets the prisoner run away, it is a dereliction of duty. But the police deliberately let the prisoners go, which is a dereliction of duty.

Further information: Malfeasance refers to the negligence, abuse of power or favoritism of professional service providers (such as medical personnel) or state staff in the performance of their duties or the exercise of their powers, resulting in harm or loss, resulting in major losses to state property, the interests of the state and the people.

Often the plaintiff had to warn the defendant of a mistake in the standard accepted in the field of expertise, and in the late twentieth century, an increasing number of physicians, lawyers, accountants, and other specialist technicians became defendants in malpractice lawsuits.

Dereliction of duty refers to the behavior of staff members who are not conscientious and responsible for their own work, and fail to perform their duties in accordance with regulations, resulting in losses to the unit or service recipients. Dereliction of duty can also constitute a crime, and when the perpetrator is a staff member of a state organ or a staff member of a state-owned enterprise, the dereliction of duty causing serious losses constitutes a crime of dereliction of duty.

Malfeasance and dereliction of duty are similar in the literal sense of "failure to perform their duties". The difference in criminal law is only the difference in usage, with the crime of dereliction of duty being used as a general term for the chapters of the sub-provisions, while the crime of dereliction of duty is linked to the specific crime.

The crime of dereliction of duty refers to the conduct of the functionaries of state organs abusing their powers, dereliction of duty, or twisting the law for personal gain, obstructing the normal management activities of state organs, and causing serious losses to the interests of the state and the people.

The crime of dereliction of duty is not a crime, it is a classification of crimes in the sub-provisions of the Criminal Law, listed in Chapter 9 of the sub-provisions, a total of 33 crimes, and 7 crimes in Chapter 9 use the word "dereliction of duty", such as: dereliction of duty causing detainees to escape; dereliction of duty by staff of state organs in signing and performing contracts; dereliction of duty in environmental supervision; dereliction of duty in the prevention and control of infectious diseases; dereliction of duty in commodity inspection; dereliction of duty in animal and plant quarantine; dereliction of duty causing damage to and loss of precious cultural relics.

Malfeasance is the occurrence of mistakes caused by poor supervision, and dereliction of duty refers to mistakes caused by ineffective work. The responsibilities are different between the two.

To put it simply, dereliction of duty should be intentional, and dereliction of duty should be negligence.

1. The concept is different from the connection, dereliction of duty is the serious irresponsibility of the state civil servant, resulting in a certain loss of public property, the interests of the state and the people; Dereliction of duty refers to the behavior of state civil servants who take advantage of their positions to abuse the powers conferred by law, or violate laws and disciplines, or derelict their duties, or abuse their power for personal gain, causing damage to the interests of the state and the people;

2. The perpetrator's actions are different, and the dereliction of duty stems from omission; Dereliction of duty is an act that is contrary to the performance of one's duties;

3. The degree of harm of the consequences is different, and the degree of harm is serious, which is a dereliction of duty; The degree of harm is particularly serious, and it is a dereliction of duty to violate national laws and should bear legal responsibility.

Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 397.

Crime of abuse of power] [Crime of dereliction of duty] Where a functionary of a state organ abuses his power or neglects his duties, causing major losses to public property or the interests of the state or the people, he is to be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention; where the circumstances are especially serious, the sentence is to be between three and seven years imprisonment. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

Where employees of state organs twist the law for personal gain and commit the crimes described in the preceding paragraph, they are sentenced to up to five years imprisonment or short-term detention; where the circumstances are especially serious, the sentence is to be between 5 and 10 years imprisonment. Where this Law provides otherwise, the judgment is to be severed in accordance with the provisions.