| Previous Next Index Image Index Year Selection | |
|
|
1 Summary of the featured article Repeat offense prevention has long been an important issue in criminal policy. At each stage of the criminal justice procedures the number of repeat offenders accounts for around 50% (in 2008 the rate of repeat offenders among persons cleared for non-traffic penal code offenses was about 41% (See Fig. 7-2-1-1 [1]), the rate of previously convicted persons among persons prosecuted for non-traffic penal code offenses and special act offenses excluding Road Traffic Act violations about 48% (See Fig. 7-2-2-2 [1]), and the rate of reimprisoned inmates about 54% (See Fig. 7-2-3-1 [1])). The threat and damage caused to society by repeat offenders is therefore highly significant. Preventive measures against repeat offenses are therefore important and meaningful in maintaining public security and protecting society. Repeat offense prevention is also considered to be greatly beneficial to all members of the public in terms of realizing a more harmonious society by reforming/rehabilitating offenders and integrating them as sound members of society.However, the factors involved in repeat offenses differ with the type of offense, and many of those factors appear to be connected to each other in a rather complex manner. Making preventive measures against repeat offenses more effective requires identification of the factors involved in repeat offenses and the institution of measures tailored to the actual situation. The 2007 edition of the White Paper on Crime described the actual situation in regard to repeat offenses by analyzing criminal records during the 60 years since World War II, and then identifying points that are considered to require attention in preventive measures against repeat offenses. This year’s featured article uses a variety of statistical data to describe recent trends in repeat offenses and the actual circumstances surrounding repeat offenders (Chapter 2). It then analyzes specific factors, etc. contributing to repeat offenses in regard to individual cases of theft and Stimulants Control Act violations, for which, as described in Section 1 of Chapter 3, both the number of cases and the tendency to repeat offenses is extremely high (Chapter 3). More concretely, in many cases with these offenses, suspension of execution of the sentence is granted at the first trial and the sentence of imprisonment without suspension of execution of the sentence imposed at the second trial (for Stimulants Control Act violations, so called end users are the subjects here). Research was therefore conducted on offenders who had been granted suspension of execution of the sentence for the first time for these offenses (hereinafter referred to in this chapter as the “research on offenders granted suspension of execution of the sentence”) and the factors involved in repeat offenses investigated by comparing those who had then repeated offenses with those who had not (Section 1 of Chapter 3). In addition, the problems of persons imprisoned were analyzed through research on first-time and second-time inmates imprisoned for the index offenses (hereinafter referred to as the “research on inmates” in this chapter) (Section 2 of Chapter 3). Furthermore, probationer/parolee and vocational volunteer probation officer interviews were conducted and the factors that lead to reformation/rehabilitation considered (Section 3 of Chapter 3). Based on this analysis and discussion, the actual conditions and factors surrounding repeat offenses of theft and Stimulants Control Act violations are outlined below and used to identify a few points that are considered to require attention when formulating preventive measures against repeat offenses. |