In this chapter, the actual circumstances and attributes of repeat offenders are analyzed using the computerized criminal record database managed by the public prosecutors office (hereinafter referred to as “computerized criminal records”) and statistical information on correction and rehabilitation. The term “repeat offender” can have different meanings depending upon the context in which it is used, as seen in Chapters 1 and 2, but in this chapter it will be used to refer to a person who has been convicted more than once. Conversely, a person who has only been convicted once in his/her life, with that fact appearing on the computerized criminal records, will be referred to as a “non-repeat offender.” Within the context of this chapter, “criminal record” will mean conviction record, or in other words, record of conviction on the computerized criminal records.
  The computerized criminal records consist of records of convictions at courts between 1948 through up to the present against natural persons having legal domicile in Japan, excluding those who were born in the Meiji era and before (i.e., persons who were born on July 29, 1912 and before).
  The Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice made random sample groups of (a) one million and (b) half a million offenders' records from computerized criminal records that dated between 1948 through to September 30, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “reference date”), with both excluding the offenses of criminal negligence, dangerous driving causing death or injury, and traffic related offenses under special acts. (a) The one million offenders' records consist of a mixture of the criminal records of repeat offenders and non-repeat offenders, with the number of criminal records amounting to a total of 1,680,495 cases (hereinafter referred to as the “One Million Non-Repeat and Repeat Recorded Convictions”). (b) The 500,000 offenders' records consist only of repeat offenders, with the number of criminal records amounting to a total of 1,678,238 convictions (hereinafter referred to as the “500,000 Repeat Offenders' Recorded Convictions”). Various aspects of repeat and no-repeat offenders were then analyzed using these two basic sets of data.
  Regarding the method used to enumerate the number of criminal records offenders have, one final judgment counts as one recorded conviction, and therefore “total number of convictions” means the total number of recorded final judgments in respect of one person.
  Furthermore, a standard was needed to decide the nature of cases when they are analyzed from the viewpoint of the offense committed. (a) When one final judgment is given for multiple offenses committed by a single person, for example, breaking into a residence and theft under the Penal Code, it needs to be determined whether this should be considered as a breaking into a residence case or a theft case. (b) The same kinds of multiple offenses being committed by a single person can also fall into both a penal code offense and a special act offense, such as where an offender has committed theft and a Stimulants Control Act violation and was sentenced in one final judgment.
  The following two standards were prepared for such cases. (a) With multiple Penal Code offenses, the most serious crime is basically used, according to the gravity of the statutory penalty, as the recorded conviction. With the above-mentioned case, upon comparing the Penal Code punishments for breaking into a residence and theft, the punishment for theft is found to be more serious than breaking into a residence, and therefore the case was counted as a theft. (b) With multiple offenses consisting of a penal code offense and a special act offense, the penal code offense is given greater priority in deciding the nature of the case. For instance, with the above-mentioned case, theft under the Penal Code was given priority and decided the nature of the case, i.e., it was counted as a theft case.
  The “term of recidivism” also needs defining as it is a key term used in analyzing problems of recidivism. In this chapter, the term of recidivism is calculated as being from when the possibility of recidivism arose due to circumstances such as the offender's release until the time a judgment at a first instance court is reached for a repeat offense. More specifically, the term of recidivism is measured as follows: 1) in the case of those granted suspension of execution of custodial sentences or fined, the term of recidivism is defined as the period from the time sentencing took place through to when sentencing took place for a repeat offense by the first instance court; 2) in the case of those sentenced to imprisonment, the term of recidivism is defined as the period of their day of release until sentencing for a repeat offense by the first instance court.
  The breakdown of cases by type of offense for the One Million Non-Repeat and Repeat Offenders' Recorded Convictions is shown in Fig. 7-3-1-1. Violent offenses such as injury and assault, theft, and violations of the Stimulants Control Act make up a high proportion.

Fig. 7-3-1-1  Percent distribution of number of recorded convictions by type of offense

  In this research, two additional sets of data were also analyzed to provide more detail of the circumstances and attributes of repeat offenders by offense, age group, and other factors. The two sets of data were based on the above-mentioned two base sets of data from which around 700,000 offenders (hereinafter referred to as the “700,000 Non-Repeat and Repeat Offenders' Recorded Convictions”) and 350,000 cases (hereinafter referred to as the “350,000 Repeat Offenders' Recorded Convictions”) were excerpted. The 700,000 records consist of 712,898 offenders with 1,218,843 recorded convictions and the 350,000 records consist of 356,539 offenders with 1,230,799 recorded convictions.
  The standards used to excerpt the cases are as follows: 1) date of birth of the offender is January 1, 1930 and after; 2) at least twenty years of age at the time of sentencing; 3) the offender was still alive at the reference date. The basic reason why these smaller sets of data were required was to avoid the effect of bias in the age distribution. As mentioned earlier, the computerized criminal records exclude offenders born on July 29, 1912 and before, and this bias can affect the age distribution in the sets of data and the death of an offender can also be the cause of errors when calculating the accurate term of recidivism.
  In this chapter, the criminal records of juveniles are also analyzed, in which the number of juveniles was 3,561 aged sixteen through nineteen at the time of sentencing and who had been sentenced during the period of 1965 through to the reference date. A shorter period than with adult cases was employed because, around 1965 and after, the affect of the post-war chaos had largely disappeared, therefore enabling juvenile cases to be observed without any bias.