The case of arson and murder of a female Chiba University student

Chronic recidivism is one of the crucial criminal policy issues in Japan in recent days that must be dealt with urgently. On November 17, 2004, an incident involving the abduction and murder of a Nara girl occurred, in which a repeat offense was committed by an ex-convict. On February 4, 2005, random street assaults of young people in Anjo City, Aichi Prefecture were committed, constituting a repeat offense by a parolee. On May 11, 2005, an incident of continued illegal confinement of a woman occurred involving a repeat offense by a person with a suspended sentence. And although the final judgment has not been rendered, the perpetrator in the case of arson and murder of a female Chiba University student was released from prison in September of 2009 and is alleged to have subsequently committed larceny and battery on October 3, larceny and rape on October 7, arson and murder of a female Chiba university student on October 21, and attempted larceny and rape on November 2. Troubled by this situation of frequently occurring chronic recidivism, the Ministry of Justice made the Actual Conditions of and Countermeasures for Recidivism the focus of their 2007 White Paper on Crime, and they are again incorporating a focus on Fulfilling Recidivism Prevention Measures once again in their 2009 White Paper on Crime.

Troubled by this situation of frequently occurring chronic recidivism, the Ministry of Justice made the Actual Conditions of and Countermeasures for Recidivism the focus of their 2007 White Paper on Crime, and they are again incorporating a focus on Fulfilling Recidivism Prevention Measures once again in their 2009 White Paper on Crime.

Considering recidivism prevention measures in light of the current situation regarding crime, we criminal policy analysts believe that the most effective method for reducing the rate of recidivism is by creating plans to facilitate the social rehabilitation of those who have served their full sentences but have nowhere to go. Accordingly, I will discuss below my recent research focus on measures for those who have served their time but have nowhere to go, and I will also focus on measures pertaining to elderly and disabled people as well as consider what types of measures are possible.

Problems of elderly, physically disabled, and intellectually disabled criminals

Taking the year 2006 as the standard, out of the approximate total of 30,000 inmates who are released from prison each year, some 15,000 have served their sentences, and of those, some 7,200 have served their time but have nowhere to go.

Needless to say, effective measures are needed to deal with the 1,700 individuals who do not request care and the 1,800 who are members of organized criminal organizations, among the aforementioned 7,200. But at this juncture, we need to stop pointing out the need to investigate why these individuals do not request care as well as the need to consider alternative ways to deal with members of criminal organizations. The urgent measures requiring our immediate attention, rather, are those dealing with problems of elderly, physically disabled, and intellectually disabled criminals..

To lead off with my conclusion, those who should receive priority treatment through welfare are: the elderly (65 years of age and above)-some 780 people, the ill and physically disabled-some 120 people, and the mentally disabled-some 100 people.

While the provision of welfare is necessary, for people such as the elderly and disabled criminals for whom such systems were not implemented smoothly in the past, coordination of the living environment during parole must be enhanced from the time of incarceration in the correctional facility, and it is essential that a concrete framework be established to facilitate collaboration with institutions such as welfare agencies.

When people dealing with the problems of the elderly and disabled are simply released from correctional facilities with nowhere to go, they encounter great difficulties in their daily lives, and the risk of recidivism increases. In fact, the Shimonoseki Station arson case and the recent case of arson and murder of a female Chiba University student are said to have occurred when people dealing with the problems of the elderly and disabled were released from correctional facilities and could not get welfare related support. In view of such examples, considering the many cases of recidivism that occur within a short period of time, it is imperative that we provide social support for people who are released from correctional facilities, and for elderly and disabled people in particular.

Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Measures

To that end, from the perspective of promoting rehabilitation, the Ministry of Justice Corrections Bureau is enhancing its treatment of elderly and disabled people-based on a special investigation conducted in 2006-placing welfare professionals such as caseworkers in correctional facilities and actively developing measures to facilitate collaboration with welfare organizations during incarceration in correctional facilities. They are also working toward providing services for elderly and disabled people at the Rehabilitation Bureau. Going forward from 2009, they are collaborating with welfare related organizations in all municipalities-including parole offices and parole officers, correctional facilities and regional rehabilitation support centers-in order to ensure welfare services for people after they are released, providing planned coordination in support of elderly and disabled people. Further, going forward from this year, welfare professionals with qualifications such as welfare caseworkers will be employed at 57 rehabilitation facilities throughout the nation. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare is also establishing support systems for elderly and disabled people released from correctional facilities-primarily focusing on support for mentally disabled people-including regional rehabilitation centers launched as municipal enterprises.

Problems of recidivism and diversification of rehabilitation facilities

In considering measures for dealing with people who have served their sentences and are released but have nowhere to go, the key is in ways to promote participation by new stakeholders in the business of rehabilitation. To put it another way, it is a matter of diversifying rehabilitation facilities. Viable alternatives include: 1) A policy of social welfare corporations accepting criminally insane disabled people, 2) A policy of medical corporations accepting disabled people who have been released from prison 3) A policy of corporations making use of welfare as they employ people released from correctional facilities who have mental disabilities, 4) A policy of private sector homeless support groups helping people released from correctional facilities to support themselves, and 5) A policy of local governments accepting people released from correctional facilities as a means of promoting regional development.

As evidenced in the case of arson and murder of a female Chiba University student, however, this is no simple matter. As countermeasures for chronic recidivism involve issues at the root of criminal policy, the fact is that we cannot arrive at any simple solutions. Now is the time for governmental policy makers-beginning with us policy analysts-to earnestly engage the problems of recidivism.