When Justice Feels Selective: Why Public Trust Is Collapsing in Mongolia

In recent years, a growing number of criminal cases in Mongolia have left the public questioning whether justice is applied equally, or selectively.

The most disturbing example is the murder of a 16-year-old girl. Even if only one person was legally identified as the main killer, multiple others were present at the crime scene. Video evidence reportedly shows individuals laughing, drinking tea, dancing, and making remarks about killing again while a teenage girl lay dead inside of the travel bag. Despite this, these individuals were declared completely innocent, with no charges, no probation, and no monitoring — justified by the claim that they were “threatened” by the main culprit.

This explanation contradicts basic logic and human behavior. Two adults witnessing torture and death of young girl showing no fear or trauma afterward, cannot reasonably be considered powerless victims. Even if they did not commit the murder, assisting, ignoring, or failing to prevent a violent crime should carry legal responsibility. Yet it did not.

The case becomes even harder to accept when other facts are considered: illegal firearms at the scene, clear evidence that suspects knew each other despite denying it, and stark inequality in legal defense — with multiple high-profile lawyers representing suspects, while victims’ families had limited representation or remained silent.

This is not an isolated case.

There are past examples where teenagers were imprisoned for years over petty theft for food, while killers of minors walked free. In one hotel case, the murder of a 13-year-old girl was reframed as an “unfortunate accident” linked to illegal prostitution — effectively shifting blame to the victim and absolving the perpetrator. In another recent case, a man was convicted simply for being in a car containing stolen goods, despite having no prior knowledge or intent.

Meanwhile, victims of sexual violence are repeatedly ignored. A university student was allegedly drugged and gang-raped by seven classmates more than a decade ago, with others present and facilitating the crime. She reported the assault multiple times to police, submitted required paperwork, and was ignored for years. Instead of protection, she faced humiliation and harassment across her university. Only now, after publicly revealing her identity on social media, has the case gained attention.

These patterns send a devastating message: minor crimes by the powerless are punished harshly, while severe crimes involving violence, sexual assault, or influential perpetrators are minimized, delayed, or dismissed.

This is not about demanding revenge or extreme punishment. It is about consistency, proportional responsibility, and basic accountability. When people who witness torture walk free, while others are punished for mere association, the law stops feeling like protection and starts feeling arbitrary.

Public trust does not collapse because people are emotional. It collapses when verdicts defy logic, evidence is selectively ignored, and victims are left alone until they speak out publicly at great personal cost.

If the justice system cannot apply the same standards to everyone — regardless of wealth, status, or connections — then it cannot expect the public to believe in it.