REPORTS OF THE SEMINARGROUP 1

THE USE OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS IN REDUCING RECIDIVISM
AND PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE PROSECUTION
AND SENTENCING STAGE
Chairperson
Co-Chairpersons
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs

Mr. Raja Shahrom b. Raja Abdullah
Mr. Toshiaki Kataoka
Mr. Getachew Erena Negara
Mr. Abdul Baaree Yoosuf
Mr. Demostenes Chryssikos
Mr. Yu Tongzhi
Ms. Toshiko Suganuma
Mr. Chit Ko Ko(Malaysia)(Japan)(Ethiopia)(Maldives)(UNODC)(China)(Japan)(Myanmar)

Visiting Expert

Dr. Peter Tak(The Netherlands)

Advisers

Professor Kayo Ishihara
Professor Megumi Uryu
Professor Iichiro Sakata(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Members

I. INTRODUCTION
The group started its deliberations on the main theme indicated above on January 25, 2007 and elected
the members of the board as listed above. The group then decided to accept the proposed agenda provided
by UNAFEI, with an additional sub-topic proposed during the discussions, so that the final agenda underconsideration was as follows:(a) Problems and challenges facing current legal systems that aim to reduce recidivism and protect
society from recidivists;(b) Identification of other effective intervention models, including diversion mechanisms and specialized
court programmes (e.g. drug court programmes);(c) Agencies that provide and ensure such interventions;(d) Problems and challenges of collaboration among related agencies;(e) Monitoring and evaluation of selected interventions;(f) The adoptability of such models in respective countries; and(g) Recidivism and restorative justice.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
A. Starting Point of the Discussions: How to Define ‘Recidivism’?
The participants considered it appropriate to deal with the delineation of the term ‘recidivism’ as astarting point of the group deliberations. As one participant (from China) pointed out, a conceptual
clarification of recidivism was needed before assessing the effectiveness of interventions against reoffendingat the prosecution and sentencing stage for the promotion of public safety. The same participant identified
the following factors for consideration in this regard: type of crime, type of punishment to be imposed, andthe length of time between crime occurrences.
Three working definitions were proposed for further consideration. The first one was as follows:“recidivism: act of a person repeating an undesirable behaviour after having experienced negative
consequences of that behaviour or having been treated or trained to extinguish that behaviour” . Thisdefinition was criticized by the group members, who emphasized that it was structured in general terms andit was not compatible with criminal justice aspects. The second definition was an attempt to narrow down
the conceptual framework of the first definition and encompass a criminological component in it:“recidivism: act of a person who reoffends after he or she has undergone at least one stage of the criminal
justice process.” One participant suggested that recidivism only applies to the intentional commission of an

150

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

offence after the court trial. A third definition brought before the attention of the group was an attempt toaccommodate the argument raised by one participant that the element of compliance with the law that isviolated by recidivists should be reflected as appropriate. This definition was as follows: “recidivism: thecontinued, habitual or compulsive commission of law violations after first having been convicted on prioroffences.” However, this attempt to conceptualize recidivism was criticized by other participants who argued
that further analysis might be necessary in relation to the terms “habitual” and “compulsive” commission oflaw violations.
Despite the abovementioned efforts to reach an accepted definition of reoffending, the group was fully
aware of the fact that so far there seems to be no agreement among researchers over how reoffending should
be conceptualized and measured. It was acknowledged that, in addition to the debate over what qualifies asreoffending, there is divergence of views over how recidivist events should be counted and when follow-up
periods for measuring recidivism should begin and end. The group took into account all these considerations
to illustrate that answering the reoffending question is by no means straightforward.

B. Problems and Challenges Facing Current Legal Systems that Aim to Reduce Recidivism andProtect Society from Recidivists
The discussion then focused on the examination of the general aims and objectives of national sentencing
policies and particularly on whether such policies are conducive to reducing recidivism and promoting public
safety. In general terms, it was noted that sentencing policies followed at the national level serve thepurposes of deterrence (general and special), promotion of public safety, rehabilitation, treatment and/or
retribution. These objectives, however, are not treated in a homogeneous manner in different jurisdictions,as the purpose of the sanction may differ depending on national priorities or the specific legislation thatapplies in a given case. The group recommended, in this connection, that, despite this divergence in national
attitudes, rehabilitation should always be considered in conjunction with other objectives of sanctioning
policies to ensure that the interests of both the offender and the community are well served.
In exploring sufficient means to reduce recidivism, the participants agreed that priority should primarilybe accorded not to whether the objectives of the sentences are prescribed in the national laws, but to theway that these objectives are translated into practice in the daily criminal casework. Therefore it wassuggested that a more integrated approach be followed to ensure better co-ordination among national
agencies, as well as consistency of action and more effective case management in this area.
The participants further discussed the type of offences mostly committed by recidivist offenders in theirrespective countries. In this context, reference was made to such crimes as property offences (theft,
burglary, fraud), robbery, forgery, assault, abduction, as well as drug and sex-related offences. It was
generally agreed that in most national legal systems sanctions were in place to punish such criminal
behaviour. However, it was stressed that the imprisonment measures per se cannot be always fully effective
because of lack of adequate rehabilitative impact on the offenders (see also below under II.C.3). Problems in
implementation of national sentencing policies resulting in ineffective treatment of offenders were also
reported.
The need to combine traditional sanctions with non-custodial measures for the treatment of offenders
was stressed by one participant, who also listed a number of advantages in following such an approach,including the – quite possible – reduction of the risk of recidivism by increasing the offender’s links with thecommunity and the savings in government resources and costs. In the same vein, the group agreed that theUnited Nations can play an important role in promoting the use and application of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules),1 including their wider distribution
to officials across sectors at the national level .
The group members also discussed factors that contribute to the increase of recidivism rates, including
the inconsistent application of criminal sanctions, as well as more general social factors such as education,
employment, drug and alcohol misuse, mental and physical health, attitudes and self-control,
institutionalization and life skills, housing, financial support and family networks. In this context, they took
1 Adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/110.

151

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

into account research findings and particularly the outcome of a major meta-analysis completed in 1996 in
Canada which identified factors that are associated with reductions in recidivism. 2
In the same vein, some participants argued that the prolonged detention of offenders due to lengthy
prosecution and investigation proceedings and delays in the adjudication of cases by courts does notcontribute to their rehabilitation and may well lead to recidivism. In this connection, one participant reported
that no threshold was defined in his country’s legislation to authorize the early release of prisoners uponcompletion of a certain imprisonment period and therefore cases of disproportionate incarceration to theseverity of crimes were reported. The same participant highlighted the problem of treating drug dealers as
drug users, thus enabling the imposition of more lenient measures to them, including early release that may
lead to the commission of new crimes. On the other hand, cases of exclusion of drug users from special
treatment programmes causing their increased vulnerability to recidivism were also reported. One
participant noted that in his country there was sometimes interference by other agencies in the process ofpolice investigation, which may obstruct the aim of reducing recidivism.
A number of participants made reference to specific problems encountered in their respective legal
systems in implementing policies that aim to reduce or control recidivism, including, inter alia, the lack ofappropriate legislation to govern investigation and prosecution proceedings, delays at the investigation andprosecution stage, capacity deficiencies and lack of resources. Some participants argued that such delays anddeficiencies, accompanied by lack of legal rules governing provisional measures (e.g. pre-trial detention),
hinder the efforts to control recidivism among offenders effectively. Furthermore, the prolonged period
between prosecution and adjudication of the case does not only violate the right of the offender to a speedy
trial, but it could also have detrimental effects on that offender, who may in the meantime have smoothly
integrated into the society.
Other problems identified by the group included:• The lack of diversely skilled and well trained personnel who would be able the meet the demandingneed to implement intervention strategies with a view to reducing recidivism;• The lack of appropriate equipment and proper facilities. It was explained in this regard that the lackof the necessary infrastructure and capacity is currently among the major obstacles in developing
effective crime prevention and reduction plans in many countries, mostly developing ones orcountries with economies in transition;• The lack of systematic action and the absence of task-oriented and effective social work with bothrecidivist offenders and victims;• The lack of knowledge and information about the whole range of criminal justice activities thatinvolve imprisonment and alternatives to it, as well as the absence of awareness-raising initiatives toenhance such knowledge.3 In this connection, it was stressed that the establishment of bestpractices in promoting public safety and controlling recidivism requires a body of reliable knowledgeof what works, in which context, by which mechanisms and at which cost.

2 The factors investigated in the study were divided into static risk factors (adult criminal history, pre-adult antisocial

behaviour, family criminality, family rearing practices, family structure, age, gender, intellectual functioning, race and socioeconomic status) and dynamic risk factors (anti-social personality, companions, criminogenic needs, interpersonal conflict,personal distress, social achievement and substance abuse).
The study demonstrated that the three factors which were most correlated with recidivism were criminogenic needs, criminal
history and social achievement. Other important factors were age, gender and race, and family background. These specificfactors are therefore the ones that should be assessed when determining who requires the most intervention. Other factors
such as socio-economic status, intellectual functioning and personal distress were not among the most predicting factors. The
results of the study also indicated that dynamic factors are slightly more effective at predicting recidivism than static factors.
However, both types of factors are very similar in their predictive effect.
3 The group took into account the findings of empirical research which show that people, in general, underestimate the factual
severity of sanctions, overestimate the effectiveness of criminal sanctions and have overly pessimistic view of thedevelopment of crime. Consideration was also given to the finding that those who know less of the facts of the crime and crime
control also have the highest fears and most punitive demands.

152

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

C. Identification of Other Effective Intervention Models, Including Diversion Mechanisms andSpecialized Court Programmes
1. Concept and Scope of Diversion in the Criminal Justice Field
The group further shed light on alternative intervention models that go beyond the conventional criminal
justice process of prosecution, sentencing and imprisonment with a view to examining their effectiveness incontrolling recidivism. In this context, diversion mechanisms and specialized court programmes (e.g. drug
court programmes) were identified as issues of particular importance that had to be examined thoroughly
and, as one of the advisers of the group noted, not necessarily separately, as they might be interrelated.
The understanding among the group members was that diversion mechanisms are geared towards rerouting to treatment and rehabilitation programmes offenders who would otherwise be convicted andpenalized through the traditional criminal justice process. The group agreed that the diversion schemes
should be prescribed by law, run at any point of the process, from police arrest to court sentence (diversion
before investigation/diversion from trial/diversion from sentencing), and used as alternatives toimprisonment.
A number of participants underscored that diversion is not applicable to all crimes and therefore it would
be important to take into account in the relevant discussions the nature and type of offences concerned.
Such an approach would also be useful for measuring recidivism in a more adequate and reliable manner
focusing on offending behaviour in targeted areas (for example, the effect of sex offender treatment
programmes on sex reoffending behaviour). Another group member argued that diversion mechanisms alone
may not be enough to address issues of recidivism and that appropriate monitoring and provision of advice tothe offenders should be available to that effect.
The group also took into account the usefulness of approaches focusing on prolific offenders that are far
more criminally active than others and contribute disproportionately to the overall crime rate.4 It was argued
in this regard that prioritizing resources on the most active offenders could bring about better outcomes interms of reduced crime rates and reoffending, as well as improve public confidence in the criminal justicesystem.
2. Diversion Mechanisms at the Pre-Trial Stage
Specifically with regard to the pre-trial stage, the participants recognized that the key question in national
criminal justice systems is how the discretion in deciding against whom action should be taken, whom toignore and whom to specially treat should be structured. At the policing level, law enforcement officers needto have clear instructions on when they can themselves issue warnings and take no further action, and when
they should refer alleged offenders to prosecuting authorities. Similarly, prosecutors need clear guidelines
on how to exercise their discretionary powers. The group was of the view that in both instances, the opinionof the victim of the alleged offences needs to be taken into consideration, although victims should not beallowed a veto over State action in the criminal justice sphere.
In China, many minor cases are settled by police. Usually, the diversion mechanism should include thefollowing factors: first, the types of offences should be traffic offences, minor injury, negligent injury and soon (according to Chinese criminal law, these offences should not result in sentences of more than three
years); second, offenders who compensate for the loss of the victim and come to reconciliation with thevictim; third, the victim agrees not to prosecute the offender. When these requirements are met, the police
can directly dismiss the case at the pre-trial stage.

4 The participants assessed concrete information and research findings presented during the plenary sessions which

demonstrate that, of a total offending population of around one million, only approximately 100,000 offenders (10% of all active
offenders) were responsible for half of all the crimes committed in England and Wales (U.K. Home Office, 2001). Moreover,the most active 5,000 of this group of prolific offenders were estimated to be responsible for one in ten offences (U.K. Home
Office, 2002). In this connection, consideration was given to the first positive results of a recently launched programme inUnited Kingdom (Prolific and Priority Offenders Programme) which was designed to give the most active or problematic
offenders a choice between the cessation of offending with the acceptance of support delivered by relevant agencies or to carryon offending resulting in prompt arrest and punishment.

153

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

One participant noted that a way to reduce recidivism is to use the prosecutorial powers to waive
prosecution as a means of diverting a case out of the formal flow of criminal justice, or to conditionallysuspend prosecution. The suspension of prosecution would require legislation, as in many cases there is no
statutory basis for such a measure. In practice, the prosecutor could impose conditions for a suspended
prosecution that would be similar to the conditions attached to a suspended sentence. The suspension may
also be combined with other treatment measures. It was further argued that, because of different political,
social, economic and cultural conditions and developments, particularly in developing countries, it would
take time to apply such measures in their entirety and to the greatest extent possible. However, processes
aimed at amending existing policies and practices need to be launched and gradually carried out, taking into
account the needs and characteristics of each society.
One group member reported on diversionary practices currently in place in his country. The mostsignificant of such practices include conferencing for young offenders with a view to educating them,informal and formal cautioning adopted by the police for juveniles and community based rehabilitation
programmes for drug users. In addition, house confinement and banishment have been two traditional
methods still widely used with offenders. The same participant noted, however, that difficulties have beenencountered in the supervision of house confinement, whereas banishment has worsened the drug problem
at the local level. The same participant raised concerns and doubts whether diversion could, in general, be
effective in drug-related cases.
One Japanese participant explained the diversion mechanisms used by the prosecutorial authorities inJapan. The public prosecutor issues guidelines to the police authorizing them to decide the termination of
the proceedings for certain petty cases. Also, the public prosecutor may suspend prosecution even when thesuspicion of an offence is proved, if such prosecution is deemed to be unnecessary in light of the character,age or circumstances of the suspect, the seriousness and nature of the offence and the situation after theoffence. Factors such as compensation to the victim and motivation are taken into serious consideration,
among others, in practice. Thus, the prosecution authorities may suspend prosecution, where, for instance,
mediation with the victim is settled, and it is widely utilized in order to divert offenders from the formal
court procedure; however, the participant is of the view that if they could suspend prosecution conditional
upon rehabilitative treatments, it would be more sufficient. The participant further explained that in practice,suspension of prosecution is widely used in order to avoid unnecessary stigmatization of suspects andbrought to the attention of the group statistics demonstrating trends in prosecution rates and suspended
prosecution rates over the last ten years. For example, in 2005, the prosecution rate was 44.8% and thesuspended prosecution rate was 53.4%. For overall cases, the prosecution rate has been on a downward
trend, while the suspended prosecution rate has been on an upward trend.
3. Diversion Mechanisms at the Sentencing Stage
With regard to the use of diversion mechanisms as alternatives to sentences of imprisonment, the group
took into account that the Tokyo Rules list a wide range of dispositions other than imprisonment that can be
imposed at the sentencing stage and which, if clearly defined and properly implemented, may also function
as measures that can facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders. Building upon the ad hoc presentationsdelivered during the plenary sessions, in which a comparative overview of the use of different sentencing
alternatives was offered, the participants exchanged views and opinions on policies and measures toimplement, separately or jointly, community sanctions ranging from conditional or suspended sentences,
probation or supervision and community service, to treatment orders and electronic monitoring.
While discussing this agenda item, the group members were asked to provide a brief overview of thebasic sanctions stipulated in their respective legal systems as a response to the commission of criminal
offences or reoffending.5 Imprisonment was reported to be the main criminal sanction for a broad range ofoffences and its length is subject to the seriousness of the crime or to recidivist incidents. The groupindicated that imprisonment should be combined and complemented with other measures geared towards
the rehabilitation of the offender and his/her reintegration into society (see also above under II.B).
5 One participant (Ethiopia) underscored that the national judicial authorities are empowered to impose aggravatedpunishment on recidivist offenders as far as the public prosecutor proves the guilt of these offenders and further explained that
this approach is essentially both a proactive and reactive way to ensure public safety.

154

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

In this regard, one participant (Ethiopia) referred to the existence in his country of rehabilitation centres
that provide basic education, vocational training and social services to offenders and may engage them inlabour aiming at their rehabilitation. One Japanese participant stated that although Japanese courts
deliberate on whether imprisonment is necessary for the defendant in light of preventing recidivism, as well
as retribution, the Japanese legal system does not provide for many options to the court at the sentencing
stage. In many cases, an increased punishment is imposed as the consequence of increased responsibility
due to the defendant’s repeated offences.
Another Japanese participant expressed similar concerns and, after explaining the different level ofsanctions applicable in the Japanese legal system, proposed that the judge should be given more options indeciding the most appropriate sanction considering such measures as probation, supervision, imposition offines, etc. The same participant stressed that in cases of minor offences, resort to community sanctions andfines would be the most appropriate option, whereas a combination of community sanctions andimprisonment could be productive with regard to mid-level offences.
4. Prison Overcrowding and its Impact on Controlling Recidivism
The group members devoted part of their discussions to the problem of prison overcrowding, despite its
little relevance to diversion mechanisms, on the understanding that this problem seriously affects therehabilitation of prisoners, thus undermining efforts to control recidivism. Furthermore, the participantsconsidered it appropriate to deal with this issue, although it falls within the agenda of Working Group 2, for acertain reason: the problem of prison over-population is exacebated by the sometimes excessive use of pretrial detention and/or the resort to imprisonment as the only available sanction to be imposed at thesentencing stage.
Building on this consideration, the group acknowledged the need to ensure the physical presence of the
defendant in the related criminal proceedings, but confirmed that the decision to detain an accused awaiting
trial is essentially a matter of weighing up the suspect’s right to liberty, on the one hand, and the interests of
the administration of justice, on the other. Taking into account Rule 6.1 of the Tokyo Rules,6 the group was ofthe view that pre-trial detention should be used with cautious deliberation. If an alternative measure to pretrial detention is chosen, it should be the one that will achieve the desired effect with the minimum
interference with the liberty of the suspect or accused person, whose innocence should be presumed at thisstage. The group members indicated that possible alternatives include the release of the person and theorder to appear in court on a specified day; not to interfere with the course of justice; to remain at a specificplace; to report on a regular basis to a court, police or other authority; to surrender passports or otheridentification papers; to accept supervision by an agency appointed by the court; to submit to electronicmonitoring; and to provide financial or other forms of security as to attendance at trial.
The group further underscored that the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives to pre-trial
detention are often examined on the assumption that the authority deciding on whether detention isrequired is able to choose freely between various options. In reality, the competent State authorities should
be in a position to create a framework for such options to function. Some alternatives require merely aformal legal power that would enable them to be imposed while other alternative measures also need thesetting up of proper mechanisms and infrastructure for their implementation.
In general terms, the group members stressed that, in order to achieve the best possible results, there
needs to be in place a coherent strategy that constantly emphasizes the overall objective of using
alternatives to imprisonment with a view to reducing the prison population. Moreover, it would be importantto pursue the adoption of alternative models, given that correction costs have an impact on the amount ofpublic funds available for other basic services and public needs. In this connection, one participant (Ethiopia)
referred to a study conducted in his country which demonstrated that the costs of imprisonment, especiallyof those offenders that have received jail sentences ranging from one to six months, were too high and, as an
example, the expenditure for one single prisoner exceeded the salary of an average low level civil servant.

6 “Pre-trial detention shall be used as a means of last resort in criminal proceedings, with due regard for the investigation of

the alleged offence and for the protection of society and the victim.”

155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

The same participant pointed out that prison congestion, which is the outcome of lack of alternative to
imprisonment models, has adverse effects on the treatment and living conditions of prisoners and therefore
high priority should be accorded to policies addressing alternatives to imprisonment.
5. Diversion Mechanisms for Special Categories of Offenders(i) Offenders with Mental Disorders
One Japanese participant informed the group of the Japanese experience of introducing medical care andcommunity supervision for offenders with mental disorders (insane or quasi-insane persons who havecommitted serious offences) as possible treatment following non-prosecution, acquittal or a suspended
sentence. While some of these offenders pose a serious threat to public safety by repeating crimes, they are
not criminally responsible for their actions, or are criminally responsible to a limited extent, thus resulting in
non-prosecution, acquittals or mitigations of sentence. Before the new scheme was introduced, these
persons were often hospitalized after non-prosecution, acquittal or suspension of sentence, but there was noformal arrangement between criminal justice agencies and medical agencies. As a result, some offenders
committed further offences because of a lack of consistent inpatient or outpatient psychiatric treatment.
Under the new scheme, the prosecutor, the court, the designated test hospital, the designated inpatient or
outpatient hospital, the mental health agencies and the probation office co-operate to provide those offenders
with proper treatment, thus enabling the relevant authorities to take flexible measures aiming at preventing
these persons from committing acts against public safety.
In general terms, the participants recognized that, despite the little or lack of criminal responsibility ofmentally ill offenders, their recidivist acts could greatly infringe public safety and therefore such offenders
should be dealt with in a manner which also ensures that further commission of dangerous acts is prevented.
It was further acknowledged that diversion of the mentally ill raises wider issues than determining criminal
responsibility. Mental illness should be taken into account when deciding how to deal with this special
category of offenders. The police and the prosecuting authorities should make special efforts to divert such
persons from the criminal justice system.7 On the other hand, mentally ill offenders who remain within thecriminal justice system should be given special consideration to determine whether they would not be better
placed outside prison. It was argued that a community sentence with a treatment element for the offender’smental illness should be considered in appropriate cases.

(ii) Drug Offenders
The participants paid particular attention to diversion policies and programmes regarding drug
offenders.8 There was an agreement that diversion has a major role to play as an alternative to imprisonment
in the drug sphere. The main argument raised in this regard was that many offenders who violate drug laws
and/or other laws commit their crimes because they are addicted to drugs themselves. It would therefore be
more effective for these offenders to be treated for their addiction, rather than processed through theconventional criminal justice system and eventually punished.
The participants acknowledged that diversion of drug users may take different forms, but, in basic terms,
it can follow the same pattern as for other offences in that the police and prosecutors use their discretion not
to arrest suspects or prosecute them. This may be subject to the condition that drug offenders enter a drug
education programme or take part in more formal treatment programmes.
One participant (Malaysia) stressed that his country was one of the few States in the region that hasdeveloped a compulsory rehabilitation programme for drug dependents. Every dependent can be ordered toundergo treatment and rehabilitation for his or her addiction for a specific period of time, as provided for

7 The courts have a particularly important role to play in this regard. The United Nations Principles for the Protection of
Persons with Mental Illness (adopted by General Assembly resolution 46/119) encourage the creation of a legislative
framework that allows the courts to intervene where the sentenced prisoners or remand detainees are suspected of having amental illness. Such legislation “may authorize a court or other competent authority, acting on the basis of competent andindependent medical advice, to order that such persons be admitted to a mental health facility,” (Principle 20.3) instead ofbeing held in prison.
8 The term “drug offenders” in this report is meant to include drug abusers and dependants and not drug dealers,manufacturers and traffickers, who are different types of offenders and should be dealt with in the context of organized crime.

156

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

under the laws and regulations relating to treatment and rehabilitation. The objective of the treatment andrehabilitation programme is to avoid recidivism among illicit drug abusers and to enable drug dependents toovercome the physical and psychological addiction to drugs and thereafter live a drug-free life. The same
participant further specified that two methods of treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependents are
implemented at the national level: rehabilitation within an institution, a controlled environment whereby the
addict undergoes treatment and rehabilitation for two years; and rehabilitation in the community, two-year
aftercare supervision of ex-addicts following their release from an institution.
The group further noted that in a number of jurisdictions diversion is formalized through drug treatment
courts. The participants underlined the particular nature of these courts, which, although they are part of thecriminal justice system, operate following a diversion strategy. In this connection, the group members
examined the key feature of the drug courts to handle cases involving substance-abusing offenders throughcomprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services and immediate sanctions and incentives. They
noted that the establishment and operation of drug courts reflect a transformation of the way courts
traditionally dealt with criminal casework related to drug-abusing offenders. Thus, while the traditional
process is adversarial and emphasizes the backward-looking adjudication of claims, rights andresponsibilities of the few participants involved, the transformed process in drug courts is collaborative andput emphasis on the forward-looking adjudication of the problem with the involvement of a wide range ofstakeholders (judge, prosecutor, defence counsel, substance abuse treatment specialists, probation officers,
law enforcement and correctional personnel, educational and vocational experts, community leaders andeducational and community anti-drug organizations).
One participant also informed the group about classification models for drug courts and the various
approaches followed by them: pre-plea, pre-trial, and post-plea approaches, depending on the point at which
the drug court admits the participant. Emphasis was given to the need to establish clear eligibility criteria
for the participation of offenders in court-directed drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes.
The group noted that success factors for the effective operation of drug courts include, inter alia, theeffective judicial leadership of the multidisciplinary drug treatment programme team; the strong
collaboration of judges and team members; the existence of an operational manual to ensure consistency ofapproach and ongoing programme efficiency; the establishment of clear eligibility criteria and a screening
process for participation of offenders in a drug treatment programme; the fully informed and documented
consent of each participant offender; the speedy referral of participating offenders to treatment andrehabilitation; the existence of mechanisms to ensure ongoing evaluation of the programme; sufficient andsustained funding to support the process; and potential changes in substantive and procedural national laws.
The group members further stressed the importance of providing clear and timely information about drug
court directed treatment and rehabilitation programmes to the community, so that its members are wellinformed about their real benefits compared with punishment by imprisonment or other means. In thisconnection, effective use could be made of the initial results of studies conducted in previous years
suggesting that drug court programmes seem to be more successful than imprisonment in preventing
recidivism of drug offenders. This is particularly important in cases where the community has
misperceptions about these programmes being too soft on participating offenders. It is also essential toprovide comprehensive information to government leaders, officials and bodies with a view to overcoming
any initial reluctance to offer financial or other support.

D. Agencies that Provide and Ensure Interventions
The discussions of the group were further expanded to identify authorities and/or agencies operating at
the national level which can be engaged in diversion mechanisms and possible interventions with offenders.
It was agreed that such authorities or agencies involved in the prosecution and sentencing stage include thelaw enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial authorities, the prisons or correction and rehabilitation centres
and the probation officers, as well as non-governmental organizations dealing with criminal justice issues
and various community institutions.
One participant was of the view that non-governmental organizations that offer treatment to drug abusers
could be helpful, but there should be a mechanism to carry out follow-up evaluations regarding the157

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

effectiveness of their programmes. The same participant identified as related national authorities andagencies the Ministry of Justice, the police and the National Narcotics Control Bureau.
One participant (from Ethiopia) noted that religious institutions may play a role in the treatment ofoffenders, although that is dependent on the political, social and cultural context of each society. The groupagreed that targeted interventions of agencies such as hospitals, through the Ministries of Health, forensic
chemistry units, community and half-way houses could also be conducive to establishing comprehensive
treatment approaches for offenders within, or in parallel with, the criminal justice processes already in place.
One Japanese participant informed the group that there are two non-governmental organizations in the
country involved in outreach interventions with drug users in custody. These organizations work incollaboration with doctors, professionals in healthcare, lawyers, and probation officers with a view toproviding education to prisoners through correspondence or particular sessions in prison. Lectures atschools and communities, and workshops for professionals, are among the activities of these organizations.
Assistance in getting bail and pre-release support are also offered by one of these NGOs. Over the last six
years, around 150 defendants took advantage of such supporting schemes. The same participant also
expressed her opinion that, in general terms, the lack of legal framework and well established requirements
for action render such interventions of non-governmental organizations sporadic, piecemeal and fragmented.

E. Problems and Challenges of Collaboration Among Related Agencies
All participants were of the view that one of the main difficulties and challenges encountered in theirrespective countries relates to the lack of effective collaboration and co-ordination among theabovementioned authorities and agencies which leads to piecemeal and fragmented interventions withlimited chances to adopt and pursue a holistic approach to dealing with offenders and recidivist incidents.
Most of them reported that the need for collaboration has become even more acute due to individualinterventions of various stakeholders which may not be linked to a comprehensive plan of action for thetreatment of offenders.
The group agreed that initiatives geared towards institutionalization of inter-agency co-operation,
especially through forming inter-agency units with a common vision, goal and function, can provide solutions
to overcome barriers to collaboration. The need for putting in place the necessary legal or administrative
framework and ensuring the political will and commitment to initiating or streamlining joint efforts andaction was also emphasized. One Japanese participant noted that the means for establishing such aframework may vary, as other countries need legislation to that effect, while others may resort toadministrative schemes or arrangements. One participant specifically underlined the lack of co-operationand co-ordination amongst agencies involved in the investigation of crimes. He also noted that the sameproblems of lack of co-operation and communication between different actors are encountered in the field oftreatment programmes for offenders as well.
Other participants highlighted the absence of an integrated information system database on recidivist
incidents and rates. They further noted that this deficiency makes it difficult to carry out an in-depth
evaluation and assessment of the extent and impact of the problem. In general terms, the availability ofcomprehensive, timely and reliable data and information is one of the essential requirements for theformulation of appropriate policies and guidelines to tackle the challenges posed by recidivism.
Some participants proposed as a means of boosting co-ordination and concerted action the designation of
focal points in each authority or agency involved, as well as the establishment of a communication network
between them through regular meetings, posting of liaison officers, information-sharing etc. One participantsuggested that national crime information centres be established with the task to collect, store anddisseminate information related to crime and justice.

F. Monitoring and Evaluation of Selected Interventions
The group further considered efficient ways and means to monitor selected interventions with offenders
and evaluate whether such interventions can be conducive to reducing recidivism. All participants accordedhigh priority to the need for having in place a solid knowledge base and sufficient information about theoffenders and the whole range of interventions used with them. It was pointed out in this regard that theavailability of reliable data will enable and improve information-sharing among related agencies, thus

158

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

strengthening their co-operation and co-ordination, avoiding duplication, and ensuring the continuity
element of the intervention schemes. As a result, a much more accurate picture of the real work being
carried out can be produced, providing at the same time fertile ground for more streamlined future efforts
geared towards enhancing the effectiveness of the overall programmes and interventions.
The group members also underlined that the systematic collection of information is a key prerequisite for
conducting research, which would be important in developing an evidence-based approach and determining
what works in the area of counter-recidivism strategies. In addition, it was agreed that research is anextremely useful tool for management planning, as it allows for better allocation and use of available
resources and assists in eliminating programmes and interventions that do not have an impact on offenders.
For this reason, the need for research staff who can carry out research projects and maintain knowledge of
new and developing trends was emphasized. Moreover, it was noted that where research staff are notavailable efforts are needed to build relationships with universities and academia to encourage research thatis consistent with local, cultural and social norms.
The participants acknowledged that, in order to conduct research in an efficient manner, it is necessary toknow what is being evaluated and, thus, be in a position to describe the programme or intervention andfurther apply it consistently so that all participants receive the same service. On the other hand, it would not
be possible to effectively evaluate programmes that are constantly under review or change, because in thiscase no reliable and comprehensive information on which programme is operationally successful can bemade available.
Additional proposals made during the discussions included the introduction of case management systems
in criminal cases, the establishment of a system of consolidated performance assessments for the authorities
and/or agencies dealing with offenders, and the setting of benchmarks that have to be met by a specified
date. The translation of such proposals into practice would enable schemes to be monitored for efficiency
and effectiveness, as well as the identification of poor performers, so that appropriate action can be taken.
Other group members suggested that partnerships should be built to allow for effective supervision andmonitoring of relevant intervention schemes. Reference was made to the involvement and role of thecommunity in this regard. Thus, one participant (from Ethiopia) reported that there had been sporadic
attempts in his country to involve the community in crime prevention and control policies, including
through periodic evaluation of police performance and community patrols around vulnerable public
infrastructure. In the same vein, the group agreed that local communities and all government agencies
should co-operate and support efforts to control recidivism, including through monitoring of relevantinterventions with offenders.

G. The Adoptability of Intervention Models in Respective Countries
With respect to implementing policies to enable the adoptability of intervention models and schemes
against recidivism in their respective legal systems, the participants put emphasis on political will andcommitment as the driving force for introducing changes and developing a clear policy in this field. It was
further stressed that political initiatives on behalf of Governments will also enable the necessary
infrastructure to be put in place and resources to be made available as appropriate. Further to that,partnerships with elements of civil society such as community organizations, organizations of professionals
working in the criminal justice sector, and non-governmental organizations that are active in the field of
crime and punishment, could be productive and conducive to more integrated and multifaceted action against
recidivism.
Some group members identified legislative reform as a first element and component of focused andintegrated strategies aiming at achieving better results with the treatment of offenders and the control ofrecidivism. They emphasized that the availability of a comprehensive legal framework for diversion
mechanisms and alternatives to imprisonment at every level, and the existence of statutory requirements
for implementing them, could provide the necessary safeguards for clearly defining roles and responsibilitiesof the authorities concerned and preserving public safety while taking into consideration the specific needsof offenders.

159

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

The lack of institutional capacity and experience in tackling the problem of recidivism would further
require, as the participants noted, the establishment and promotion of training programmes and activities forenhancing the expertise and skills of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges. From thisperspective, the provision of appropriate technical assistance to countries in need, especially developing
countries and countries with economies in transition, was considered to be vital. The relevant role of theUnited Nations in providing such assistance was highlighted by one participant.
The group also referred to the need to raise awareness of programmes in action and underscored that a
strategy should be developed for placing sufficient information in the public domain so that members of thecommunity are aware of the issues at stake and can make an informed input into the relevant debate on
improving counter-recidivism mechanisms. Furthermore, it was noted that the media have an important roleto play in informing the public about such issues. It is therefore necessary to brief representatives of themedia about the overall efficacy of diversion mechanisms and alternatives to imprisonment so that they areable to put occasional failures into a wider context.
One participant underlined that the lack of trust in rehabilitation and the perception that the treatment ofoffenders tends to spend too much time and resources on criminals and, in addition, is too lenient andminimally intrusive are challenges that need to be addressed by treatment providers. It was further argued thatthese kinds of views tend to discriminate against individuals who have completed the institutionalized part oftreatment and are attempting to reintegrate into the community. Lack of employment, educational
opportunities, and peer pressure, that lead to the commission of an offence in the first place, are doubled after aperson is labeled as an offender undergoing a treatment programme. These social miscarriages need to becorrected for treatment to be effective and initiatives to raise awareness are a first step.

H. Recidivism and Restorative Justice
At the beginning of the deliberations, the group agreed that this sub-topic should be incorporated in the
proposed agenda that was brought before its attention.
Starting point for the relevant discussions was the suggestion made by one participant (from Ethiopia)
that in seeking alternative models of effective interventions with offenders and dealing with problems ofrecidivism, the role of the community should be considered. It was argued, in particular, that many
restorative justice approaches provide for an expanded role for community members in the resolution of
conflict and in responding to crime problems, usually by resorting to customary law. The contribution ofsuch approaches to the conclusion of agreements to be adhered to by offenders, and sometimes also byother parties, may well strengthen social control capacities and preserve the social cohesion of thecommunity. For this reason, it was further pointed out that a systemic change in criminal justice agencies
and systems in order to empower community decision-making and responsibility in the response to crimeand harm could be a viable approach. Such an approach can be adapted to the circumstances, legal
traditions, principles and underlying philosophies of national criminal justice systems. It may also
encourage the offender to gain insight into the causes and effects of his or her behaviour and takeresponsibility in a meaningful manner. It may further be particularly suitable for situations where juvenile
offenders are involved and in which an important objective of the intervention is to teach the offenders
new values and skills.
In the same vein, the group took into account that there is a considerable variability in the nature andextent of community involvement in the various restorative justice approaches. For example, in victimoffender mediation,9 the community is absent and the process consists of a mediator, the offender and the

9 Victim-offender mediation or reconciliation programmes are designed to address the needs of victims of crime while

ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their illegal acts. These programmes can be operated by both governmental
agencies and non-profit organizations and are generally restricted to cases involving less serious offences. Referrals may comefrom the police, the prosecutors, the courts, and probation offices. The programmes may function at the pre-charge, postcharge/pre-trial, and post-charge stages and involve the willing participation of the victim and the offender. They can also offera pre-sentencing process leading to sentencing recommendations. When the process takes place before sentencing, theoutcome of the mediation is usually brought back to the attention of the prosecution or the judge for consideration.

160

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

victim. In circle sentencing,10 on the other hand, the process is open to all members of a local neighbourhood,village or indigenous group. In this connection, cases were mentioned regarding the function of quasi-formal
courts at the community level dealing with minor cases, or other instances where a village chief mediates
conflicting parties to settle their conflict and achieve reconciliation without reporting to the police. The
Chinese participant introduced the restorative justice system in his country. Restorative justice should atleast include three most important factors as follows. First, the victim should participate in the criminal
procedure dealing with the case. This is a conspicuous characteristic different to traditional justice.
Traditional justice stresses retaliation against the offender, but doesn’t attach the importance of theprotection of the victim’s rights. He was of the view that stressing the victim’s increased participation incriminal procedure is the major change in the criminal justice system at present. Second, restorative justiceunderscores that offenders should try hard to compensate the victims for loss, and seek for forgiveness fromthe victim. Third, more non-custodial penalties should be imposed, for example, a community penalty,suspension of sentence, parole, fines and so on. In recent years, China has begun to apply the basic
principles of restorative justice in dealing with criminal cases.
A number of participants acknowledged that many members of the community are likely at first to view
restorative justice processes as more lenient and less effective at preventing or controlling crime than the
traditional criminal justice system and its reliance on punishment. An innovative restorative justiceprogramme may be seen as an enabling factor for a ‘lighter’ treatment of the offender, particularly when amore serious offence is involved. Therefore the group stressed the importance of developing materials anddesigning initiatives to educate the community and raise awareness of the principles, objectives and practicesof restorative justice and the potential role that community members can play in responding to crime.
A number of participants further recognized that strategies of restorative justice may play a crucial rolein decisions about diversion. Where mechanisms are in place to allow for settlement of disputes by
restorative means, they may also encourage the use of alternatives to imprisonment. Meetings withoffenders, victims, and community members where techniques of mediation and alternative dispute
resolution are used to deal with matters that would otherwise be subject to criminal sanctions, have thepotential to divert cases which might have resulted in imprisonment both before trial and after conviction.
Moreover, the participants underlined that where the diversion is linked to full restorative justiceprocesses which interrupt the further operation of the criminal justice system in particular cases, it isnecessary to have a parallel structure to facilitate these alternative processes. This requires administrative
support that can be provided by the State authorities or by non-governmental organizations operating in
partnership with criminal justice agencies.
With regard to the link between restorative justice programmes and reoffending, a number of participants
noted that a growing number of empirical studies in this field have not so far provided a straightforward
answer. Some of them have not shown reduction in recidivism, while others indicated that restorative justiceinterventions are associated with small but significant decreases in reoffending, mostly in cases of low-risk
offenders. There are a few reasons for this which the group took into account. First, restorative justiceincludes a broad range of justice activities and processes, some of which aim to divert offenders away fromtraditional justice proceedings and others which run in conjunction with traditional processes. In addition,
restorative initiatives may also be placed at various levels of the criminal justice process: pre-court diversion(e.g. restorative cautioning and conferencing), pre-sentence and post-sentence. It was the opinion of thegroup that with so many variations, it is not surprising to come up with varied research outcomes on therelationship between restorative justice and reoffending. However, the participants also acknowledged that,

10 Circle sentencing is a characteristic example of participatory justice in that members of the community can be directly

involved in responding to incidents of crime and social disorder. In this process, all the participants, including the judge,
defence counsel, prosecutor, police officer, the victim and the offender and their respective families, and community residents,
sit facing one another in a circle. Circle sentencing is generally only available to those offenders who plead guilty. Discussions
among those in the circle are designed to reach a consensus about the best way to resolve the conflict and dispose of the case,taking into account the need to protect the community, the needs of the victims and the rehabilitation and punishment of theoffender. The sentencing circle process is typically conducted within the criminal justice system, includes justice professionals
and supports the sentencing process.

161

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

if restorative justice processes meet the key objectives of holding offenders accountable, encouraging themto accept responsibility for their wrongdoing, not stigmatizing them, and providing a forum that promotes
reintegrative and rehabilitative outcomes, then re-offending is less likely. The group highlighted theimportance of attempting to understand how and why restorative justice renders change in offenders,
including more detailed qualitative assessments of what offenders in restorative justice understand about theprocess and how this affects their future behaviour.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Effective interventions through prosecutorial and sentencing decisions play an important role in bringing
about reduction of recidivism and ensuring public safety. The common denominator in the discussions ofWorking Group 1 was that alternative intervention models that go beyond the conventional criminal justiceprocess of prosecution, sentencing and imprisonment, such as diversion mechanisms at both the prosecution
and sentencing stage and drug court programmes or other schemes targeting specific categories ofoffenders, may well serve the objectives of preserving public safety and order and rehabilitating theoffenders with a view to controlling recidivism. In that sense, authorities and agencies involved in this area
should establish an effective collaboration network to avoid fragmented action and ensure that a holistic andintegrated strategy to address the problems posed by recidivism is pursued and effectively implemented.
Upon completion of the deliberations reflected above, the participants came up with the following
recommendations which intend to provide a set of key principles and factors for enhancing the effectivenessof interventions in reducing recidivism and promoting public safety at the prosecution and sentencing stage:
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.

162

Where necessary, legislative reform should be pursued and carried out as a first element andcomponent of strategies aiming at achieving better results with the treatment of offenders andthe control of recidivism;
There should be various options such as suspended sentences and other non-custodial
measures to be applied at the pre-trial and sentencing stage, and the rehabilitation of theoffender should always be considered in conjunction with other objectives of sanctioning
policies to ensure that the interests of both the offender and the community are well served;
A more integrated approach should be followed to enable better co-ordination among national
and local agencies, as well as consistency of action and more effective case management inpreventing and controlling reoffending;
The designation of focal points in each authority or agency involved in intervention models
with offenders, as well as the establishment of a communication network between them andthe enhancement of information-sharing mechanisms should be prioritized as a means ofboosting co-ordination and facilitating concerted action among the various stakeholders;
An integrated information system of database on recidivism incidents and rates should be
developed to carry out an in-depth evaluation and assessment of the extent and impact of the
problem and formulate appropriate policies and guidelines based on comprehensive, timely
and reliable data and information;
In order to ensure the operational success of intervention models with offenders, primaryconsideration should be given to establishing the appropriate infrastructure and making
available the necessary resources for supporting such infrastructure;
In order to address the lack of institutional capacity and experience in tackling the problems
posed by recidivism, high priority should be accorded to training programmes and activities,
and the provision of technical assistance generally, aiming at enhancing the expertise andskills of law enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial authorities, as well as other staff involvedin criminal justice affairs;
Effective mechanisms primarily aimed at monitoring and assessing the effectiveness ofintervention should be developed;
Partnerships with non-governmental organizations and other elements of civil society should
be built and further encouraged to allow for multi-stakeholder involvement in theimplementation of intervention schemes;
In seeking alternative models of effective interventions with offenders and dealing withproblems of recidivism, the role of the community should be examined and restorative justiceapproaches can be considered as a response to crime problems, especially with regard to lessserious offences.