Probation in Japan: Strengths and challenges and likely new tasks
| Author | Andrew Watson |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220318794370 |
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
794370EJP0010.1177/2066220318794370European Journal of ProbationWatson
2018
Original Article
European Journal of Probation
2018, Vol. 10(2) 160 –177
Probation in Japan: Strengths
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
and challenges and likely new
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220318794370
DOI: 10.1177/2066220318794370
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
tasks
Andrew Watson
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Abstract
Origins of the probation service in Japan, its administrative structure, the respective
roles of Professional Probation Officers (PPOs), hogo kansatsu kan, and the nearly 50
times more numerous Volunteer Probation Officers (VPOs), hogo-shi, are described.
Recruitment of VPOs, their backgrounds, increasing age, methods of work and training
is outlined, followed by activities of local VPO Associations and Offender Rehabilitation
Support Centres. Strengths of the distinctive Japanese VPO system are analysed,
followed by challenges it faces. Chief amongst them being the introduction of partly
suspended sentences coupled with probation for drug offenders and the need to build
adequate medical, psychological, accommodation and employment support to prevent
their reoffending and aid recovery. Consequences and new tasks for probation of the
widely expected lowering of the age of criminal adulthood are also considered.
Keywords
Challenges, Japan, probation, strengths
Introduction
Although an understudied field of inquiry, research, literature and discussion is accumu-
lating about the increasing presence of the voluntary sector and volunteers in a more
heterogeneous criminal justice landscape (Hucklesby and Corcoran, 2016; Tomczak,
2014; Tomczak and Albertson, 2016). Volunteers are significant in many countries. In
developing scholarship in our jurisdictions, it is important to observe their role and rela-
tionship with rehabilitation professionals in others. This study was conceived for that
purpose and seeks to explain the central, and generally accepted, role of volunteers in
Japanese probation and rehabilitation, to describe the greater responsibility being placed
Corresponding author:
Andrew Watson, Sheffield Hallam University, Heart of The Campus, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield
S10 2BP, UK.
Email: andrew.watson@shu.ac.uk
Watson
161
on them in dealing with the persistent problem of recidivism related to illegal drugs and
the substantial changes and new tasks that may result if, as widely predicted, the age of
criminal adulthood is lowered from 20 to 18. It was also an aim to update with fresh
developments a key article written by Ellis et al., published in Probation Journal seven
years ago, which examined probation within the wider Japanese criminal justice system,
presented thoughts on its future direction and asked whether there were lessons for, or
links with, England and Wales (Ellis et al., 2011).
Methodology
This article draws on materials available in English from various sources. It is also based
on discussions, loosely structured interviews and correspondence with: professional pro-
bation officers (PPOs) in Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto, Voluntary Probation Officers (VPOs)
in those cities; workers in half way houses in Tokyo, officials of the Rehabilitation
Bureau of the Ministry of Justice in Tokyo; academics at Osaka City University, Doshisha
University, Kyoto, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Rissho University, Tokyo and Chuo
University, Tokyo; attorneys in Kyoto and Wakayama and members of the Ministry of
Justice Legislative Council. All participants in this study generously gave their time dur-
ing the writer’s period at Osaka City University as a visiting scholar during the summer
time of 2016 and 2017. This cannot claim to be a scientific qualitative sample. However,
the article hopes to accurately present what information was gathered.
Some features of the modern probation system
Organized rehabilitation of offenders is clearly traceable to the late 19th century, how-
ever the present system arose after the Second World War. (Rehabilitation Bureau, 2015:
2–4). The Offenders Rehabilitation Law 1949, part of sweeping reforms of pre-war crim-
inal procedure in Japan by the mainly American “General Headquarters of the Allied
Powers”, which operated until 1951 (Oda, 1999: 29–31: 423), introduced a modern reha-
bilitation system to protect society, promote the welfare of the public and aid the refor-
mation and rehabilitation of offenders1.
There are 50 probation offices, 3 branches and 29 local offices throughout Japan
(Akashi, 2015: 5), administered by the Rehabilitation Bureau, one of six departments
within the Ministry of Justice. A striking feature of the Japanese probation system is how
few Professional Probation Officers are appointed compared to the large number of
Voluntary Probation Officers (Ellis et al., 2011: 336–337). Figures supplied by the
Rehabilitation Bureau show that at the end of 2014 there were approximately 1000 PPOs,
employed as civil servants by the Ministry of Justice, in the field (additionally some 112
PPOs work for Regional Parole Boards) and over 48,000 VPOs, who support them by
providing offenders with additional supervision and assistance. The foremost duties of
PPOs in both adult and juvenile cases are supervision of probationers and parolees that
requires close working with VPOs; inquiry into domestic circumstances for purposes of
possible parole from prison or Juvenile Training School; aftercare for discharged offend-
ers who apply for it (this may include financial assistance for accommodation, meals,
transport and clothing (Rehabilitation Bureau, 2015: 30); liaison with halfway houses
162
European Journal of Probation 10(2)
run by voluntary organisations to obtain accommodation for persons released from
prison or Juvenile Training School; promoting crime prevention activities and investiga-
tion and application for individual pardons (Rehabilitation Bureau, 2015: 32). A further
important task is organising and conducting training for VPOs and staff in halfway
houses.
Although Family Court Probation Officers, employed by the Supreme Court in the
Family and High Court, investigate and prepare reports for judges on juveniles’ social
and family circumstances, attitudes to offences committed and offending generally, there
is no equivalent in adult courts – an obvious difference to England and Wales – and
judges rely on information supplied by the prosecution and the defence.
An offender placed on probation or released on parole is required to report immedi-
ately to a probation office for an interview with a probation officer during which how
probation or parole supervision operates is explained. The probation officer then designs
a treatment plan based on the interview, relevant records and an assessment of need and
risk (Akashi, 2016: 31–32). Unlike England and Wales, a range of actuarial and clinical
assessment tools are not employed.
As well as general conditions that apply to all supervisees, including attending inter-
views and residing at an agreed address, special conditions may also be imposed such as
avoiding contact with a certain person or group, attending a special programme on prevent-
ing sex offending, violence or stimulant drug taking and, since 2015, participating in social
contribution activities, a form of community work (Rehabilitation Bureau, 2015: 22).
Supervision by voluntary probation officers
The Director of the Probation Office assigns a VPO as the day-to-day supervisor of the
offender. Regular meetings take place, two or three times a month, with the VPO, usually
at his or her home, but visits to offenders’ homes are made also sometimes. In accordance
with the treatment plan, the VPO visits and works with the supervisee’s family and pro-
vides guidance and practical support for him or her, often helping to obtain and keep
employment. The VPO submits a monthly progress report to the PPO who, if necessary,
intervenes with the offender and can begin procedure to revoke parole or probation
(Akashi, 2015: 10).
If thought unsuitable to be assigned to a VPO, a probationer or parolee may be super-
vised directly by a PPO. He or she may be allocated to more than one VPO in certain
circumstances.
Another key task undertaken by VPOs is visiting families of those serving custodial
sentences to investigate their domestic circumstances. Information about family relation-
ships, accommodation and employment prospects is then sent to PPOs who make it
available to Regional Parole Boards. In the course of these duties, VPOs write to inmates
or visit them to confirm information and ascertain their future plans. It is not unusual for
a VPO who has already contacted a prisoner to be appointed as his or her supervisor on
release.
It is not inaccurate to say that in some ways the level of responsibility undertaken by
VPOs equates with that of paid Probation Service Officers in Community Rehabilitation
Companies in England and Wales.
Watson
163
Legally defined, VPOs are non-permanent government officials and remain private
citizens. As such, they are not prohibited from political activities or bound by the civil
service code of ethics. The maximum age of appointment is 66. Although their term of
office is two years, they can be continuously reappointed until a retirement age of 76.
More than half all VPOs have served for more than eight years, nearly a quarter 15 years
and over a tenth 20 or above years. (Minoura, 2015 :3)....
To continue reading
Request your trial