Number 112

 October 2021

PREVENTION OF CRIME AND
TREATMENT OF OFFENDERSUNAFEI’S RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIESANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020 and RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 112
FEATURED ARTICLESReducing Reoffending: The Kyoto Congress Workshop and Future Developments
ISHIHARA Kayo (UNAFEI)
Promoting the Implementation of Rehabilitative Environmentsin the ASEAN Region
TAKAI Ayaka (UNAFEI)The Kyoto Crime Congress and the “Decade of Action”:
Framing the Global Narrative on Reducing Reoffending
Thomas L. Schmid (UNAFEI)The United Nations Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders

PREVENTION OF CRIME
AND TREATMENT OF
OFFENDERSANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020
AND

RESOURCE MATERIALSERIES NO. 112

UNAFEI
Akishima, Tokyo, Japan

October 2021

MORINAGA Taro
Director
United Nations
Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
2-1-18 Mokuseinomori, Akishima-shi, Tokyo, Japan
unafei@i.moj.go.jp

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY NOTE........................................................................................................................................................... iii
PART ONEANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020
Main Activities of UNAFEI............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2021.................................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

PART TWO
PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE 12TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASIAN
CRIMINOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Contributors’ Papers⃝ Reducing Reoffending: The Kyoto Congress Workshop and Future Developments
by Ms. ISHIHARA Kayo (UNAFEI)...................................................................................................................................... 31⃝ Promoting the Implementation of Rehabilitative Environments in the ASEAN Region
by Ms. TAKAI Ayaka (UNAFEI)............................................................................................................................................. 45⃝ The Kyoto Crime Congress and the “Decade of Action”: Framing the Global.
Narrative on Reducing Reoffending
by Mr. Thomas L. Schmid (UNAFEI)................................................................................................................................. 55

APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 71⃝ Evaluating ‘smarter sentencing’ and ‘smarter punishments’: a view from Englandby Ms. Nicola Padfield (United Kingdom)......................................................................................................................... 73⃝ Strategies to Reduce Reoffending: The Outcome of Workshop 2 of the.
14th Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
by Mr. Stephen Pitts (United Kingdom)............................................................................................................................... 83

Photographs⃝ The 14th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice ............................... 97⃝ UNAFEI’s Alumni Webinars........................................................................................................................................................ 99⃝ Asian Criminological Society (UNAFEI’s Panel Discussion) ............................................................................100

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES INDEX.......................................................................................................... 101
i

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
It is with pride that the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) offers to the international community this issue of Prevention of Crime
and Treatment of Offenders, UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 112. Due to the global impact of theCovid-19 pandemic and the severe restrictions on international travel, it was necessary to postpone all ourinternational training courses and seminars scheduled in Fiscal Year 2020. However, I am pleased to report
that, as of the date of this publication, we have resumed our international training programmes, beginningwith the 23rd UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme, which is being held exclusively online from September
to October 2021.
In lieu of publishing papers and reports from our international training programmes, this issue contains
the Annual Report for 2020 and papers presented by UNAFEI staff members at the 12th Annual Meetingof the Asian Criminological Society. These papers reflect on the outcome of Workshop 2 of the 14th United
Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, which was held in Kyoto, Japan, in March 2021.
Workshop 2 addressed the theme of “Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions”, and
UNAFEI, as the UN Programme Network Institute in the host country, took the lead in organizing theworkshop in close cooperation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
In looking back at the outcome of Workshop 2, we have also taken the opportunity to reflect on UNAFEI’s
activities over the past decade to establish rehabilitative environments in Southeast Asia and to explore thelinks between the fields of sustainable development and crime prevention and criminal justice. These
reflections have offered unique perspectives on the preparation of the new Model Strategies on Reducing
Reoffending – proposed UN standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice that are currently
in the drafting stage.  I hope our readers find Resource Material Series No. 112 informative and thoughtprovoking.
I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of the Government of Japan, particularly the Ministry ofJustice, the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation, for providing
indispensable and unwavering support to UNAFEI’s international training programmes and other activities.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all who so unselfishly assisted in the publicationof this series.
October 2021

MORINAGA Taro
Director of UNAFEI

iii

PART ONE
ANNUAL REPORTFOR 2020•

Main Activities of UNAFEI•

UNAFEI Work Programme for 2021•

Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2020 – 31 December 2020)
I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI)
was established in Tokyo, Japan, in 1962 pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in the Asia and the Pacific region
by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, through training andresearch.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent, contemporary problems in
the administration of criminal justice in the region, especially problems generated by rapid socio-economicchange (e.g., transnational organized crime, corruption, economic and computer crime and the reintegrationof prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research
projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute's work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of the criminal justice field discuss and studypressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice from the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers. This so-called“problem-solving through an integrated approach”is one of the chief characteristics
of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks’ duration) and one internationalseminar (five weeks’ duration). Approximately one hundred government officials from various overseas
countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA is an independentadministrative institution for ODA programmes) each year to participate in UNAFEI training programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants.   Overseas
participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle and Near East, Latin
America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators holding relatively
senior positions in the criminal justice field.
The global Covid-19 pandemic had a significant impact on UNAFEI’s activities during the 2020 calendar
year. The 174th International Senior Seminar was held in January 2020, but all subsequent in-person training
courses were postponed, specifically the 175th and the 176th International Training Courses and the 23rd
UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme. These programmes have been rescheduled to 2021, and they will
be held online due to the global health situation.
Despite the sudden and severe impact of the pandemic on UNAFEI’s in-person training programmes,
UNAFEI adapted quickly to the new environment and shifted its activities online. In September 2020,
UNAFEI held its first alumni webinar, which brought together over 100 members of the UNAFEI family
from all parts of the world. The alumni webinar series has quickly become an important part of UNAFEI’s
strategy to promote best practices in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice and to strengthen its
global network of alumni.
By the end of 2020, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 174 international training courses and seminars.
Over 6,100 criminal justice personnel representing 139 different countries and administrative regions haveparticipated in these seminars. UNAFEI also conducts a number of other specialized courses, both country
and subject focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In
their respective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and hold important posts in the3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020
fields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 174th International Senior Seminar
1. 	Introduction
The 174th International Senior Seminar was held from 13 January to 7 February 2020. The main theme
was“Prevention of Reoffending and Fostering Social Inclusion: Policy Making and Good Practices”. Twentyfour overseas participants and seven Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
2. 	Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants introduced the roles and functions of criminal justice agencies in theircountries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from UNAFEI professors and visiting
experts, the participants were then divided into group workshops as follows:
Group 1:

Effectively Incorporating Rehabilitative Perspectives into Penalties and Case Dispositions

Group 2: 	 Promoting Intervention, Treatment and Support Tailored to Offenders’ Individual Needs
Group 3: 	 Fostering Public Understanding and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Acceptance of Offenders
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order to facilitate
the discussions. During group discussion, the group members studied the designated topics and exchanged
views based on information obtained through personal experiences, the Individual Presentations, lecturesand so forth. The Groups presented their reports during the Report-Back Session, where they were endorsed
as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports were published in UNAFEI Resource Material
Series No. 111.
3. 	Outcome Summary(i) Effectively Incorporating Rehabilitative Perspectives into Penalties and Case Dispositions
Group 1 considered the problems, challenges and solutions to the inclusion of rehabilitative perspectives
in criminal justice dispositions. Despite the adoption of the Tokyo Rules almost 30 years ago to promote theuse of non-custodial measures, incarceration and punitive approaches remain popular and overutilized. By
considering the barriers to the use of non-custodial measures, Group 1 sought to identify solutions that might
promote the inclusion of rehabilitative perspectives throughout all relevant stages of the criminal justiceprocess.
The group found that all of the participating countries had adopted common non-custodial measures suchas non-prosecution, suspended proceeding, suspended sentence and fines, but the adoption of other measures(community work, community fine, and restorative justice) varied widely. Even where available, the mindsetof criminal justice authorities was considered an impediment to the use of non-custodial measures. One of
the fundamental problems with the underuse of non-custodial measures is that it results in prison
overcrowding—an environment that undermines the effectiveness of offender treatment and rehabilitation.
Other barriers to the inclusion of rehabilitative perspectives in the criminal justice system include legal
impediments, the prevailing public attitude that supports punitive justice, the lack of analysis of individual
risk and needs (i.e., the lack of individually tailored treatment), and the lack of synergy between various
agencies.
After considering the problems and challenges, the group proposed a number of possible solutions: first,
adopting laws and policies to foster the inclusion of rehabilitative perspectives, such as depenalization ofminor drug-use crimes; second, alternatives to pre-trial detention through the use of bail, electronic monitoring,house arrest and similar practices; third, designing evidence-based programmes to provide treatment as analternative to incarceration; fourth, conducting risk-needs assessments and tailoring treatment to theindividualized needs of each offender; fifth, promoting awareness of the benefits of the use of non-custodial
measures among criminal justice practitioners, the general public and the media; and sixth, the creation ofsynergies among communities and key stakeholders to foster the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders
into society.
In conclusion, the group found non-custodial measures to be more effective in terms of treatment and cost4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
to the correctional system. It was noted that most jurisdictions are better prepared to incorporate rehabilitative
perspectives into juvenile dispositions than adult dispositions. Accordingly, the group encouraged criminal
justice practitioners to include rehabilitative perspectives at all relevant stages of the criminal justice systemand to expand the use of non-custodial measures.
(ii) Promoting Intervention, Treatment and Support Tailored to Offenders’ Individual Needs
Group 2 reported that reoffending is a common issue faced by criminal justice systems throughout theworld and, thus, discussed the importance of breaking the cycle of crime by providing offenders withindividually tailored treatment based on effective risk assessment. The group considered the challenges andgood practices faced by the participating countries in providing tailored treatment by considering five key
issues: the justice system, human resources, assessment, specific treatment programmes, and community
awareness.
Regarding the justice system, prison-based treatment programmes are often hindered by overcrowding,while treatment in the community suffers from a lack of human resources or even the lack of functional
probation or community supervision systems. Citing a prison reform model in the Dominican Republic andthe use of probation officers and volunteer probation officers in Japan, the group suggested that countries
can enhance their own practices by reviewing those of other countries.
Regarding human resources and assessment, quality assessments require thorough examination of
offenders’ risks and needs, but such assessments require personnel with the qualifications and skills necessary
to conduct assessment and subsequent treatment. Countries must invest in human resources and assessment
by providing relevant training and developing effective assessment tools.
Regarding specific treatment programmes, offenders resort to crime due to a wide variety of reasons, suchas family conflicts, chronic drug use, history of abuse, and physical and mental impairment. Treatment
programmes must be designed to address these unique needs, and they must also be evaluated to confirm
effectiveness.
Finally, regarding community awareness, the community has an important role to play in the rehabilitationand social reintegration of offenders. In fact, the community will only harm itself by excluding offenders or
by failing to provide them with necessary support. Under those circumstances, offenders will return to crime.
Thus, public awareness programmes like the Yellow Ribbon Project in Singapore hold great promise inbuilding trust between the community, government and offenders.
The group concluded by offering the following recommendations: first, all countries should consider
establishing or improving probation systems to implement community-based treatment; second, correctional
treatment programmes should be tailored to offenders’ individual needs and should be provided in custodial
and non-custodial settings; third, improving the quality of risk-needs assessments in order to conform
treatment programmes to offenders’ needs; fourth, building the capacity of practitioners who conduct
assessment and treatment through education and training; fifth, enhancing public awareness of and support
for the importance of offender rehabilitation and reintegration.
(iii) Fostering Public Understanding and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Acceptance of Offenders
Group 3 considered the importance of public understanding and multi-stakeholder partnerships to thesocial reintegration of offenders. The group found that overcoming public stigma against offenders is aprevalent issue faced by many countries. This issue was approached by discussing the challenges, bestpractices and solutions to fostering public awareness, acceptance of offenders into the community andacceptance of ex-inmates into the community.
The group noted a number of good practices aimed at fostering awareness in the participating countries.
These practices included national strategies to support offender rehabilitation, holding exhibitions to promote
offender rehabilitation, the implementation of crime prevention plans by local agencies, and community
support programmes like volunteer probation officers in Japan and community probation volunteers in
Kenya and Indonesia. Despite the existence of such practices, many offenders face stigmatization, social
exclusion and other burdens as they attempt to reintegrate into society—these burdens often lead to
reoffending. Former inmates face the harshest stigma and discrimination compared to other offenders. They
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020are viewed as vicious criminals who are likely to reoffend. This makes it difficult for them to find housing,obtain employment, receive health care or otherwise lead normal lives. Even though members of the public
sympathize with former inmates’ need to be accepted into society, they nevertheless refuse to accept former
inmates as neighbours when they return to the community.
To overcome these challenges, the group stressed the importance of changing public perceptions ofoffenders. To raise public awareness, the group highlighted the role of awareness-raising campaigns such as
the Yellow Ribbon Project in Singapore and the “Hogo chan” mascot in Japan. To ensure that offenders areprovided with necessary support in the community, the group encouraged the expansion of community
support services like probation, employment support, and community work orders (community service),
which helps to demonstrate the value that offenders can bring to the community. Halfway houses andemployment support were raised as important measures to reintegrate and destigmatize former inmates
upon their return to the community. Finally, the group emphasized the importance of persuading community
members of the value of supporting offenders upon re-entry by demonstrating how such support can beeffective at reducing crime and reoffending.
In conclusion, Group 3 stated that multi-stakeholder partnerships and increased public awareness of thechallenges faced by offenders upon reintegration into society are important factors to reduce or eliminate
stigmatization of and discrimination against offenders.

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND OTHER
ACTIVITIES
A. Workshop on Community Corrections in Cambodia
On 13 January, a workshop organized by the Regional Office for South-East Asia and the Pacific of theUnited Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and UNAFEI was held in Cambodia, at which 71
officers from the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice of Cambodia discussed the potential
advantages of community corrections.
B. Training Course for Corrections Officers in Timor-Leste
From 10 to 13 February, a workshop was held by the UNODC Regional Office for South-East Asia andthe Pacific and UNAFEI in Dili, Timor-Leste, during which 33 corrections officers discussed the managementof offenders to prevent violent extremism.
C. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
From 19 to 27 February, 12 Nepalese criminal justice practitioners discussed challenges to theimplementation of the new Criminal Procedure Code in Nepal.
D. Training Course for Corrections Officers in the Philippines
Once a week from 12 October to 9 November, an online training was held by the UNODC Regional Officefor South-East and the Pacific in Bangkok, together with UNAFEI, at which 40 corrections officers from theManila City Jail, Philippines, discussed offender assessment and rehabilitation programmes.
E. The Fourteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
Due to the global pandemic, the 14th Good Governance Seminar, originally scheduled to be held in
December 2020, was rescheduled to March 2021.

IV. ALUMNI WEBINARS
A. First Alumni Webinar
On 30 September 2020, UNAFEI, together with JICA, held its first alumni webinar, which was attended
by approximately 110 practitioners. Two UNAFEI professors and four alumni from the 173rd and 174thInternational Training Courses presented updates on recent criminal justice issues, mainly in the field of thetreatment of offenders, including responses to the coronavirus pandemic. The alumni–presenters – from
Kenya, Sri Lanka, Brazil and Japan – also reported on how they had made use of their experiences at
UNAFEI in their daily work. After the presentations, participants were able to ask questions to the speakers
and share their own experiences. The webinar also included brief updates from our former Visiting Experts
6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
on the situation in Europe (Mr. Stephen Pitts, International Ambassador of the Confederation of European
Probation (CEP)) and the situation in Latin America (Dr. Miriam Estrada-Castillo from Ecuador, Vice Chairon Communications of the OHCHR’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention). After the formal session, an
online reunion took place in which approximately 70 participants were able to provide personal andprofessional updates.
B. Second Alumni Webinar
On 19 November 2020, approximately 90 practitioners participated in UNAFEI’s second alumni webinar,
which focused on investigation, prosecution and adjudication issues. A UNAFEI professor presented on themeasures to respond to the pandemic in investigation and prosecution practice in Japan. Then, alumni fromthe 172nd International Training Course (Panama and Lao PDR) and the 22nd UNCAC Training Programme(Ukraine and Armenia), which were both held in 2019, presented on how they had made use of theirexperiences at UNAFEI in their daily work and shared updates on criminal justice issues faced in practice,including responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Like the first alumni webinar, a Q&A session and brief
reunion event were held following the presentations.

V. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime prevention
strategies and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe and the Americas, and makes
use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Service of theInstitute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies, governmentalorganizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

VI. PUBLICATIONS
A. Annual Publications
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, the Institutehas issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members, visiting
experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2020, the 110th and 111th editions of the
Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issue 161 of the UNAFEI Newsletter (on the 174th
Senior Seminar) was published, which included a brief report on the seminar and other timely information.
These publications are also available on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.
B. Publications of Research Studies by UNAFEI Professors
1. Background
The main work of the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) is to conduct international training courses and seminars for personnel incrime prevention and criminal justice administration from developing countries around the world, as well as
to conduct regional and bilateral research and provide technical assistance in the field of crime prevention
and criminal justice. Through its activities since 1962, UNAFEI has accumulated knowledge on criminal
justice in various countries.
Based on this knowledge, we have published the journal Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders,also known as UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series, and other publications to promote awareness of the UN
standards and norms in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice and to disseminate good practices
being implemented around the world.
Due to the global coronavirus pandemic, many of the training programmes planned for the 2020 fiscal
year were postponed. We decided to use this as an opportunity to share the knowledge and information
gained through our activities by publishing the results of our research in Japanese. These efforts resulted in
two publications in Japanese: “Criminal Justice and Criminal Treatment Systems in Countries Supported by
UNAFEI – Cambodia, Kenya, Myanmar, Nepal and Viet Nam” and “Anti-Corruption Strategies in Southeast
Asia”.

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020
2. 	Criminal Justice and Criminal Treatment Systems in Countries Supported by UNAFEI – Cambodia,
Kenya, Myanmar, Nepal and Viet Nam
This publication is a collection of research papers on criminal justice systems by professors at UNAFEI.
The five countries surveyed are those in which UNAFEI has provided bilateral technical assistance in thefield of crime prevention and criminal justice. Upon request from recipient countries around the world andthe United Nations, UNAFEI provides bilateral technical assistance. Such assistance mainly includes training
courses and seminars both at UNAFEI and overseas locations.
UNAFEI, in cooperation with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), began to support the
improvement of juvenile justice practices in Kenya in the 1990s. Since 2013, UNAFEI has conducted a seriesof programmes called the“Joint Comparative Study on the Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal”.
Upon taking over the Viet Nam training programme from the International Cooperation Department of the
Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice in 2014, UNAFEI has supported Viet Nam's efforts
to reform and improve its criminal justice system through conducting a series of programmes called the“Joint Comparative Study on the Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Viet Nam”
. UNAFEI also provided
technical assistance in the field of prison reform in Myanmar since 2015, which was focused on the capacitybuilding of prison officers in Myanmar.
An overview of the bilateral assistance to, and the organizations of, each targeted country are describedin detail below. As overseas travel is severely restricted, we could not conduct on-site inspections to
supplement our research. However, the criminal justice system of each country is introduced by making fulluse of the data accumulated by UNAFEI.
(a) Cambodia
From 2013 to 2015, the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) andthe three countries of Japan, China and the Republic of Korea (ASEAN+3) met to discuss cooperation in thearea of treatment of offenders. UNAFEI participated in the ASEAN+3 meeting and, based on the results ofthe meeting and the seminars that evolved from the meeting, began support for efforts to enhance communitybased corrections in four countries: the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, theLao People's Democratic Republic, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Japan continues to provide
support for the establishment and implementation of community-based treatment systems throughinternational cooperation efforts led by the Ministry of Justice. The publication provides an overview of thetreatment of offenders in Cambodia, as well as the current situation and issues for the establishment andimplementation of community-based corrections.
(b) Kenya
In order to improve the serious situation concerning juveniles in Kenya, UNAFEI, in cooperation with
JICA, began to support the improvement of juvenile justice practices in the 1990s. As a summary of UNAFEI’stechnical assistance, the“Project for Capacity Building of Child Care and Protection Officers in the Juvenile
Justice System”was implemented from 2009 to 2013. As a result, a training curriculum for officials of juvenile
justice organizations was developed, and a training facilitator manual (module) was also developed. The
Kenyan Constitution was amended in 2010, which strengthened the powers of public prosecutors in juvenile
justice procedures. As a result, it became necessary to revise the module. UNAFEI professors were involved
in revising the module, which enriched UNAFEI’s knowledge on the juvenile justice system of Kenya. Thispublication summarizes the knowledge gained as a record for the future.
(c) Myanmar
The publication summarizes the treatment of offenders in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, which
had been guided by UNAFEI since 2013, through training, consultation, and joint research with theCorrectional Service of the Interior Ministry of the Republic of Myanmar, concerning appropriate prison
administration. In addition, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the efforts of the Myanmar Prison
Service and to consider measures to enhance treatment of offenders, it is important to understand theoffender treatment system and related laws and regulations in Myanmar. Therefore, this section also provides
information on the provisions of laws and administrative guidelines. Various suggestions have been made byinternational organizations and human rights organizations regarding prison management in Myanmar,
where the prison system of the former British colonial period and the military regime remain.

8

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(d) Nepal
In Nepal, the Murki Ain (national code) was established in 1854. This Code was influenced by the Civil
Code of the French (the Napoleonic Code). Murki Ain was amended in 1963 and functioned as the law
governing civil and criminal cases in Nepal until August 2018. However, the legal code, with the history over
150 years, lacked differentiation between the civil law and criminal law, and the failure of the code todifferentiate between substantive law and procedural law was regarded as a problem. Therefore, Murki Ain
was repealed and new legislation – the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Penal Code, the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the Sentencing Law – was drafted. This section outlines the criminal procedures in
Nepal, focusing on the new Code of Criminal Procedure and introduces the contents of the Penal Code andthe Sentencing Law. Nepali criminal justice practitioners have participated in UNAFEI’s international
training programmes, and since 2013 UNAFEI has been conducting comparative joint research on the
judicial systems of Japan and Nepal with Nepalese judges and prosecutors. The publication introduces
UNAFEI’s findings on criminal justice practices in Nepal.
(e) Viet Nam
Japan has been supporting Viet Nam in the development of various aspects of its legal system. These
efforts were pioneered by the International Cooperation Department (ICD) of the Research and Training
Institute of the Ministry of Justice, which started providing legal technical assistance to Viet Nam in 1994,
within the framework of Official Development Assistance (ODA) by the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA). Upon taking over the Viet Nam training programme from the ICD in 2014, UNAFEI has
supported Viet Nam's efforts to reform and improve its criminal justice system through conducting a seriesof programmes called the“Joint Comparative Study on the Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and VietNam”.
In Viet Nam, in addition to basic laws such as the Civil Code and the Penal Code, the Code of Civil
Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure, were revised in 2015. The current Code of Criminal Procedure
in Viet Nam is an amendment of the former Code of Criminal Procedure of 2003. It was enacted in 2015, but
as the implementation of the amended Penal Code was postponed, the amended Code came into force on 1
January 2018 as well. This section provides an overview of criminal procedures in Viet Nam with a focus on
the provisions of the 2015 Viet Nam Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. 	Southeast Asian Anti-Corruption Legislation
Corruption is a complex social, political and economic phenomenon that affects all countries. Corruption
undermines democratic institutions, slows economic development and contributes to governmental instability.
Therefore, countermeasures against corruption continued to be one of the most important issues fordeveloping countries, including Southeast Asian countries.
In 2007, UNAFEI launched the Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries,
known as the Good Governance Seminar, in order to enhance the capacities of anti-corruption agencies andto establish and strengthen the network of competent authorities within Southeast Asia. The seminar is heldin support of activities to establish the rule of law and good governance in Southeast Asian Countries, tocontribute to capacity-building for criminal justice practitioners, and to promote mutual understanding andcooperation among Southeast Asian countries. One of the main aims of the seminar is to strengtheninternational cooperation and enhance the capacity and human resources of institutions involved ininvestigating and prosecuting corruption crimes, such as bribery, embezzlement and abuse of authority,committed by government officials.
In principle, the seminar is held every two years, and has been held in Japan and countries other thanJapan, such as Thailand (2007-2008), the Philippines (2009-2010), Malaysia (2013-2014), Indonesia (2015-2016),
and Viet Nam (2017-2018). When these seminars are held outside of Japan, they are held jointly with designatedcriminal justice or international cooperation agencies in those countries, and they have been useful indeepening cooperative relationships with these organizations. The thirteenth Good Governance Seminar was
hosted solely by UNAFEI from 17 to 19 December 2019. Twenty-three criminal justice practitioners whodeal with corruption issues from ten ASEAN countries participated in the seminar. The seminar marked thefirst occasion on which Timor-Leste participated in the Good Governance Seminar, which increased thenumber of participating countries to eleven.

9ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020
UNAFEI was able to accumulate knowledge on the legislation against corruption in Southeast Asian
countries through the Good Governance Seminar. The seminar provides us with information on the current
situation of corruption in the region and on developments in anti-corruption measures. The accumulated
knowledge and information resulted in this publication, a collection of UNAFEI professors’ research papers
on anti-corruption legislation in the eleven Southeast Asian countries listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Brunei Darussalam
Kingdom of Cambodia
Republic of Indonesia
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Malaysia
Republic of the Union of Myanmar
Republic of the Philippines
Republic of Singapore
Kingdom of Thailand
Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

In addition, since 2000, UNAFEI has conducted an international training programme called the“International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption (UNCAC Training
Programme)”which focuses on the effective implementation of the United Nations Convention against
Corruption (UNCAC) of which almost all countries of the world are Member States. Some of the participantsof the Good Governance Seminar have also participated in this training programme in which they and theirfellow participants shared information on the current state of measures against corruption crimes in theirrespective countries.
As overseas travel is severely restricted, we could not conduct on-site inspections to supplement our
research. However, the publication in Japanese introduces Southeast Asia's anti-corruption legislation bymaking full use of the data we have accumulated. Each section, aligned with the provisions of UNCAC,
discusses the legal system to combat corruption crimes in Southeast Asian countries, specifically an overview
of corruption crimes and corruption-related crimes, an overview of the investigating and prosecutingorganizations and their roles, and international cooperation.

VII. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 31 January 2020, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand Conference Hall of the
Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni and the participants of
the 174th International Senior Seminar. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime Prevention
Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, through comparativeinternational study by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2020, Ms. Jana Spero, AssistantMinister, Directorate for Prison System and Probation, Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia, andMatthew Wee Yik Keong, Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitation Enterprises,
were invited as speakers. They presented on“Prison and Probation Service in the Republic of Croatia”and, respectively.
“Empowering Lives, Transforming Communities”
B. Creation of Video Materials for On-demand Training
1. Background
The Covid-19 pandemic has greatly restricted UNAFEI’s activities and has made it impossible to carryout international training courses and seminars in person. UNAFEI has been seeking to conduct its
programmes online, but there have been challenges, for example, due to time differences among participating
countries and the inability to visit relevant institutions during online training.
On the other hand, UNAFEI has accumulated valuable experience through conducting webinars for
UNAFEI alumni and other online activities, which has demonstrated the benefits of online seminars. Indeed,10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
time differences are a challenge, but utilizing on-demand video materials enables participants to learn athome when they are available without incurring travel costs. From the viewpoint of providing updated
information continuously and easily, online training courses have advantages.
In order to conduct effective online training, appropriate teaching materials, in terms of both quality andquantity, are essential. Because in-person training and online training have different characteristics, materials
cannot simply be reused for in-person training. For example, on-demand materials cannot offer the same
degree of interactivity as in-person training. Simply adding the lecturer’s voice to the slides is not enough tokeep participants focused during on-demand lectures.
In addition, it was assumed that even if in-person international training programmes could be resumed,
there would still be considerable restrictions on visits to relevant institutions, which is one of the features of
the training, from the perspective of infection prevention measures, for the time being. Since visiting relevant
institutions and learning actual procedures are one of the most important factors for the effectiveness of
training, it was also considered important to create training materials that could substitute for actual visits
as much as possible.
2. Planning of Video Materials
Based on this situation, from a relatively early stage of the Covid-19 pandemic, UNAFEI recognized that
it would need to conduct online training courses and seminars with on-demand video materials. From June
to August 2020, with the cooperation of JICA, which has conducted many international training programmes
and has experience in creating training materials, we began to research and discuss the creation of video
materials.
As a result, the following ideas were shared on the creation of video materials:a) 	Materials should cover all criminal justice procedures in Japan from investigation, prosecution,
adjudication to offender treatment;b) 	Materials should contain mock procedural demonstrations, and filming should be conducted on location
as much as possible;c) 	The mock procedural demonstrations should be based on a single case from investigation to treatment
in order for the audience to be able to understand how the case is handled, step by step.
3. Preparation for Filming
In this project, the goal was to create effective materials by incorporating a fair number of mock procedural
demonstrations. On the other hand, in order to create such materials, it is necessary to create detailed
scenarios for the demonstration, secure locations and performers, and actually perform the demonstration,in addition to the slide materials or manuscripts for ordinary lectures. With this understanding, the following
preparations were carried out to film mock demonstrations and lectures from December 2020 to January
2021.
The most time-consuming part of the project was writing the scenario. From September to November
2020, we prepared the basic case settings and the detailed scripts for each scene. From the perspective ofproviding as much explanation as possible about the current criminal justice procedures in Japan, we set the
subject as a case for a saiban-in trial, in which citizens are randomly selected to hear cases together withprofessional judges. We also decided that the mock procedures include not only the mock trial but also theinvestigation process, the saiban-in appointment procedure, interviews at penal institutions and rehabilitation
facilities, and interviews with probation officers, which are not open to the public. As the UNAFEI faculty iscomposed of active judges, prosecutors, correctional officers, and probation officers, draft scripts wereprepared based on practical expertise in each field.
We also coordinated with the institutions to see if they would permit filming at their facilities. Fortunately,
many of the relevant institutions understood the significance and usefulness of the project, and we were able
to conduct interviews on the prison grounds, and filmed in the mock cells at the Training Institute for
Correctional Personnel and at a halfway house. As a result, the material covered more scenes than could becovered in a single training course or seminar and included a wealth of mock procedures including non-public
procedures.
11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020
4. Filming and Editing
The mock procedural demonstrations were filmed by a professional film crew, and professional editing
made it possible to create video materials that ensure the accuracy of the content and enhance theeffectiveness of the training. The scene that took the most time to film was the mock trial. It took more than
6 hours to film a 20 minute mock trial movie.
5. Summary of the On-Demand Materials(a) Kono’s case
Mr. Kono cut and injured the victim with a knife in a bar. As a result of the investigation, the prosecutor
indicted Mr. Kono with attempted homicide1 because he had the intention to kill when he cut the victim. In
response, the defendant disputed the intent to kill and argued that his actions only constituted injury.2 As aresult of the trial, the court found the defendant guilty of attempted homicide and sentenced him to four
years’ imprisonment. Mr. Kono was incarcerated and received treatment that included a violence prevention
programme. Then, he was finally granted parole and released. Since he did not have a home to live in after
release, he was admitted to a halfway house to facilitate his reintegration into society.
(b) Oda’s caseIn addition to Kono’s case, we also created another version of the case (Oda’s case), which is a violencecase that took place under similar circumstances but the defendant did not use a weapon. This was done to
explain community-based correctional treatment by placing the offender on probation.
(c) Use of the on-demand materials
The materials were either filmed in English or subtitled in English, and we believe that this is the firsttime video training materials have been created that simulate the Japanese criminal justice procedure in
English. These materials can be expected to have a great training effect in terms of providing intuitive
understanding of the Japanese system and practice.
(d) An outline of the materials (Refer to annex for more details)<Chapter 1> Overview of the Criminal Justice System in Japan<Chapter 2> Overview of Investigation and Prosecution in Japan<Chapter 3> Trial<Chapter 4> Treatment of Offenders–Prison<Chapter 5> Treatment of Offenders–Community Corrections
Annex: Description of the Video Material<Chapter 1> Overview of the Criminal Justice System in Japan (lecture)
A lecture which delivers a comprehensive view of the criminal justice system in Japan.
<Chapter 2> Overview of Investigation and Prosecution in Japan (lecture and mock procedural demonstration)
A lecture that covers the reporting of the crime to the public prosecutor’s decision to prosecute.
This material includes the following mock procedural demonstration:
Kono’s case: Mr. Kono was arrested on suspicion of attempted homicide, and underwent a caution
procedure at the public prosecutors’ office. At the beginning of the procedure, the rights of thesuspect, such as the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, were explained to him, and hestated that he did not intend to kill the victim. The prosecutor requested the judge to permit preindictment detention, and Mr. Kono was questioned before a judge. The judge also explained therights of the suspect, and Mr. Kono again stated that he did not intend to kill.

1

Under the Japanese Penal Code, the crime of attempted homicide should be constituted when an actor commits an act
against a victim with the intent to kill and the act has a real risk of causing the victim's death, but the victim does not die.
2
Under Japanese law, in a case where the defendant is charged with attempted homicide, if the court cannot find defendant's
intent to kill, the defendant should not be convicted as attempted homicide. However, in such cases, if the defendant injured
the victim, the court should convict the defendant of the crime of injury. This argument can be a defence because theapplicable punishment for the injury is less severe than the attempted homicide.

12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI<Chapter 3> Trial (lecture and mock procedural demonstration)
A lecture covering the indictment, preparation for trial, trial, deliberation on the judgment and on
the appointment procedure for saiban-in. This material includes the following mock procedural
demonstrations:
Mr. Kono was indicted for attempted homicide. The case was tried by a saiban-in trial, which istried by a hybrid panel of 3 professional judges and 6 citizens selected randomly, after preparation
for the trial in the pre-trial conference procedure. Prior to the trial, a procedure for appointing
saiban-in to hear the case was held, in which saiban-in were selected by lottery from among
citizens. The appointed saiban-in took an oath of office and began their duties, and the trial began
in the courtroom. At the trial, Mr. Kono claimed that he did not have the intention to kill the victim,
and the evidence was examined, including documentary evidence, exhibits, and the testimony of thevictim. After the conclusion of the trial, the professional judges and saiban-in deliberated on whether
or not the defendant had the intent to kill and what the sentence should be. Finally, the judgment
was pronounced in the courtroom.
<Chapter 4> Treatment of Offenders–Prison (lecture, mock procedural demonstration and inmate interviews)
A lecture on correctional institutions and treatment. This material includes interviews by corrections
officers and the following mock procedural demonstrations:
Kono was sentenced and incarcerated. At the prison, a classification interview is conducted toclassify the inmates according to their characteristics and treat them accordingly. Since Mr. Kono
had been convicted of a violent crime, he was required to attend a violence prevention programmein the prison, and after the programme, he was interviewed by the officer in charge of education.
Since he had completed the violence prevention programme and his behaviour in prison was good,he was granted parole with about six months remaining on his sentence. Prior to his parole, he wasbriefed by a welfare officer on the halfway house where he would reside and the welfare services
that would be available to him after his release.
<Chapter 5> Treatment of Offenders–Community Corrections (lecture and mock procedural demonstration)
A lecture on parole and probation and on supervision. This material includes the following mockprocedural demonstrations:
Kono’s Case: Mr. Kono was released from prison on parole, but he had no place to live, and he wasadmitted to a halfway house. When Mr. Kono visited the halfway house just after release, thedirector of the facility interviewed him and gave him a tour of the facility. Mr. Kono told the
director that he wanted to find a job, save money, become independent, and return to society.
Oda’s case: After suspended sentence with probation was pronounced, Mr. Oda visited the probation
office for an assessment interview. The probation officer explained to Mr. Oda about the volunteer
probation officer in charge and told him that he had to attend the violence prevention programme
at the probation office. Mr. Oda visited the volunteer probation officer's house and talked with him
about his life and work, and Mr. Oda expressed his determination to rehabilitate himself. The
volunteer probation officer said that he graduated from the same elementary school as Mr. Oda andoffered some advice. In addition to visiting the volunteer probation officer regularly, Mr. Oda spent
his probation period taking a violence prevention programme at the probation office.
C. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of the important tasks of
UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situation internationally.
D. Overseas Missions
Director Seto and Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia, from 13 January toserve as lecturers at workshops hosted by the UNODC.
Professor Futagoishi, Professor WATANABE Machiko and Chief International Administration Officer
13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020
Fujita visited Vientiane, Lao PDR, from 19 to 20 February to discuss plans for the 14th Regional Seminar on
Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries with related organizations.
Professor Yamamoto visited Dili, Timor-Leste, from 10 to 13 February as a lecturer at on-site seminars
hosted by the UNODC.
Director Seto visited Vienna, Austria, from 12 to 14 February to attend the 4th informal consultation of
the 14th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Chief International Administration Officer Koseki visited Phnom
Penh, Cambodia, from 26 to 27 February to discuss plans for a project hosted by the UNODC with relatedorganizations.
Professor Morikawa visited Nairobi, Kenya, from 26 to 28 February to discuss plans for the assistance ofthe juvenile criminal justice system in Kenya with related organizations.
Professor Yamamoto visited Manila, Philippines, from 9 to 13 March to conduct research for a project
hosted by the UNODC.
E. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and collaborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention and criminal justiceadministration in the region.  Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals, and a large part of the
ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.

VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for running theInstitute. The director, deputy director and approximately nine professors are selected from among publicprosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation and the police.   UNAFEI also has approximately 15
administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and alinguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training
course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts, volunteers andrelated agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Mr. WATANABE Hiroyuki, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo Probation
Office in April 2020.
Ms. KITAGAWA Mika, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo Probation Officein April 2020.
Ms. YAMAMOTO Mana, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Training Institute for
Correctional Personnel in May 2020.
Ms. TAKAI Ayaka, formerly an officer of the Saitama Probation Office, was appointed as a professor of
UNAFEI in April 2020.
Mr. OHTSUKA Takeaki, formerly an officer of Hitachinaka Resident Minister’s Office, the Mito Probation
Office, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI in April 2020.
Ms. SASAKI Ayako formerly an officer of the International Transfer of Sentenced Persons, Prison Service
Division, Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI in May 2020.
Mr. TSUKAMOTO Masaomi, formerly the chief of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Sectionof UNAFEI, was transferred to the Training Department, the Research and Training Institute in May 2020.

14

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
Mr. YAMANE Kenji, formerly the chief of the Training Department, the Research and Training Institute,
was appointed as a chief of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of UNAFEI in May 2020.
Mr. SAITO Masato, formerly an officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI, was transferred to the Chiba District Public Prosecutors Office in April 2020.
Ms. MATSUDA Mariko, formerly an officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI, was transferred to the Director of the Welfare Division, the Ministerial Secretariat, Ministry ofJustice in April 2020.
Ms. IINUMA Hazuki, formerly an officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo Probation Office in April 2020.
Mr. TATSUKAWA Masashi, formerly an officer of the Okayama District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed as a senior officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of UNAFEI in April
2020.
Mr. FUJISAKI Takuma, formerly an officer of General Affairs Division, the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministryof Justice was appointed as a senior officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI in April 2020.
Ms. MUKAI Saori, formerly an officer of Training Department, the Research and Training Institute, wasappointed as an officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of UNAFEI in April 2020.

IX. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. UNAFEI’s total budget for its
programmes is approximately ¥70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for
the Institute's international training courses and seminars.

15

UNAFEI WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2021

I. TRAINING
Training Courses & Seminars (Multinational)
1. The Fourteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 23 to 24 March 2021, UNAFEI held the Fourteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance inTokyo, Japan, on the theme of Integrity and Independence of Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement
Officials. Fourteen anti-corruption practitioners from 8 ASEAN countries and Timor-Leste attended as
official delegates.
2. The First Youth International Training Course
From 2 to 6 August 2021, UNAFEI held the First Youth International Training Course on the theme of“Youth Initiative for Prevention of and Desistance from Drug-related Offences”. Twenty-three youth
participants from 8 countries, including Japan, attended the course.
3. The 23rd UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme, willtake place from September to October 2021. The main theme of the Programme is “Tackling Emerging
Threats of Corruption in the Borderless and Digitalized World”. Approximately twenty-five overseas
participants will attend.
4. The 175th International Training Course
The 175th International Training Course will be held from October to November 2021. The main themeof the Course is "Achieving Inclusive Societies through Effective Criminal Justice Practices”. Government
officials from across Southeast Asia and other parts of the world and visiting experts and lecturers willattend.
5. The 176th International Training Course
The 176th International Training Course will be held from November to December 2021. The main themeof the Course is “Treatment of Women Offenders”. Approximately twenty-five overseas participants willattend.
6. The Fifteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 20 to 22 December 2021, UNAFEI will hold the Fifteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance inTokyo, Japan. Among other participants, approximately 20 anti-corruption practitioners from ASEAN
countries and Timor-Leste are expected to attend as official delegates.

17

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020

Distribution of Participants by Professional Backgrounds and Countries(1st International Training Course - 174th International Senior Seminar)

As ofProfessional Background

Judicial and
Other
Administration

Country/Area

Judge

PublicPoliceProsecutors

Officials

1

Afghanistan

11

9

2

Bangladesh

24

15

6

3

Bhutan4

Brunei4

5

Cambodia

1

3

1

7

6

China

13

5

5

10

7

Georgia

8

Hong Kong

Correctional

Correctional

Probation

Family Court

Child

SocialTraining &Officials(Adult)Officials(Juvenile)

ParoleOfficers

Investigation
Officers

WelfareOfficers

WelfareOfficers

Research
Officers

522

31 December 2020
Others

Total

1
5

1

32
4

6

2

23

23
2

6

1

13
8

41

3

1

83

1

2

6

4

6

1
22

12

79

1
32

3
1

9

India

15

10

55

7

10

Indonesia

23

25

33

33

15

11

Iran

5

12

8

8

6

12

Iraq

6

3

3

8

5

9

1

2

4

101

3

142

1

42

5

2

32

4

3

119

13

Jordan

1

1

3

7

2

14

Korea

13

3

53

6

37

15

Kyrgyzstan

1

2

3

16

Laos

16

9

7

10

42

17

Malaysia

24

2

7

52

37

18

Maldives

6

4

5

9

2

19

Mongolia

3

1

3

20

Myanmar

12

1

1

12

38

18

18

34

1

4

13

3

48

4

1

9

29

44

21

Nepal

22

Oman

23

Pakistan

22

14

8

4

3

28

1

2

11

3

16

2
23

26

Saudi Arabia

5

7

3

27

Singapore

11

18

5

12

10

3

10

1

1

11

28

Sri Lanka

24

25

22

25

20

29

Taiwan

12

4

2

2

1

30

Tajikistan

2

3

31

Timor-Leste

3

111

2

2

101

7

5

7

158

1

1

17

3

1

1

74

1

133

32

Thailand

1
3

1

1

9

3

21
5

1
29

51

46

19

1

1

2

Turkey2

United Arab Emirates

1

35

Uzbekistan

36

Viet nam

15

Yemen

2

A S I A

388

9

5
8

Palestine

33

22

9

21

1

8

1

2

8

1

215

1

1

4

2

1

5

6

8

253

272

494

1

232

4

2
5

2

1

4

6

49

52

1

Algeria
Botswana

2

3

Cameroon

44Cote d'Ivoire

5

Democratic Republic of the Congo

6

Egypt

7

Ethiopia

38Gambia

9

Ghana

1

1

5

10

Guinea

2

1

4

11

Kenya

13

3

14

12

Lesotho13

Liberia

14

Madagascar

15

Malawi

16

Mali

17

Mauritius

18

Morocco2

19

Mozambique

1

20

Namibia

3

21

Niger

22

Nigeria1

23

Somalia1

24South Africa

25

Seychelles

26

Sudan

1

4
40

85

4

4

30

1

11

1

5

4

2

2

3

4

2

1

5

3

3

19
11
3

1

2

2
1

8
7

10

1

2

20

1

2

71

2

3
1

1

1
1

1

2

1
3
4

1
1

2
1
1

3

4

1

1

10

1

1

3

1

2

7

6

7

4

3

1
1

16
5

2

2

1,903
6

13

6

9
45

2

2

1
1

16
1

4
2

8
1

1

1

145

30

Philippines

34

1

4

25

18

6

2

24

37

1

2

1

13

1

1

9

2

20

1
1

1

5

UNAFEI WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2021

27

Swaziland

28

Tanzania2
4

29

Tunisia30

Uganda31

Zambia32

Zimbabwe

1

AFRICA

44

3

7

1
1
41

9

2
2

1

2

1

5

1

6

8

3

8

12

40

105

1

Australia

2

Cook Islands

1

3

Fiji

7

4

Kiribati

1

5

Marshall Island

1

6

Micronesia

1

7

Nauru

1

8

New Zealand

9

Palau

10

Papua New Guinea

1

31

1

9

22

1

6

27

10

9

2

1

3

2

2

2

7

4

1

4

2

3

19

73

38

2

2

0

Bolivia

6

Brazil

4

7

Chile

1

8

Colombia

9

Costa Rica

10

Dominican Republic

11

Ecuador12

El Salvador

13

Grenada14

Guatemala

15

Guyana

4

2
2

1

38

Vanuatu

5

57

2

2

1

Belize1

12Barbados

3

1

Tonga

4

3
4

75

1

12
9

1

19

1
0

22

8
0

0

3

1

5

202

1

7

1

2

2
2

1

1

4

1

1

3

2

3

1

1

1

23

3

1

3

5

5

32

4

1

4

2

2

6

1

1

8
1
1

1

1

4

1

5

1

14

2

16
2

1

6

1

1

1

1
2

2
66

2
2

304

5

13

3

4

1

1

5

Argentina

10

7

1

3

Antigua and Barbuda

2

4

Samoa

2

1

17

Solomon Islands

1

0

3

1
17

24
1

12

THE PACIFIC

2

1

11

14

25

12
1

1

1

3

1

1

5
4

16

Haiti

17

Honduras

1

18

Jamaica3

2

19

Mexico

2

2

1

5

20

Nicaragua

21

Panama

1

9

5

2

17

22

Paraguay

1

1

9

23

Peru

4

4

5

2

27

1

1

2

1

8

1
5

1

11

1

24

Saint Christopher and Nevis

25

Saint Lucia

26

Saint Vincent

27

Trinidad and Tobago

28

U.S.A.

29

Uruguay30

Venezuela

1

10

1

1

1

1

12

1

1

2
1

3

2
1

2
1

2
1

1

3

NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA

32

1

Albania

1

2

Armenia

1

3

Azerbaijan

1

4Bulgaria

5

Estonia

22

11

1

12

51

116

3
1
17

3

2

1

2

1

4

15
13

2

264
3
1
1

1

1

1

1

6 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

27

Hungary

1

8

Lithuania

1

1

9

Moldova1

1

10Poland1

11

Ukraine1

2

4

EUROPE

7

2

5

2
1

6

1
0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

9

1

1

22

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

1

1

JAPAN

119

214

336

113

110

102

235

72

38

2

48

93

1,482

TOTAL

628

535

723

907

428

147

368

77

45

57

116

147

4,178

Note: This chart covers UNAFEI's International Training Courses, International Senior Seminars, U.N.Human Rights Courses and 1 Special Course completed by 31 December 2020; participants of othercategories of training courses are not reported.

19

APPENDIX

MAIN STAFF OF UNAFEI
Faculty:
Mr. SETO Takeshi
Ms. ISHIHARA Kayo
Mr. FUTAGOISHI Ryo
Mr. OTANI Junichiro
Ms. WATANABE Machiko
Mr. WATANABE Hiroyuki
Mr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito
Ms. KITAGAWA Mika
Dr. YAMAMOTO Mana
Mr. FURUHASHI Takuya
Mr. MORIKAWA Takeshi
Mr. Thomas L. Schmid

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Chief of Information and Public Relations
Professor
Professor
Professor
Chief of Research Division
Professor
Professor
Linguistic Adviser

Secretariat:
Mr. FUJITA Takeshi
Mr. TOYODA Yasushi
Mr. KOSEKI Takahiro

Chief of Secretariat
Chief of General and Financial Affairs Section
Chief of Training and Hostel Management Affairs
SectionAS OF 31 DECEMBER 2020

21

APPENDIX

2020 VISITING EXPERTS
THE 174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Dr. Matti Joutsen

Special Advisor
Thailand Institute of JusticeMs. Jana Špero

Assistant Minister
Directorate for Prison System and Probation
Ministry of JusticeRepublic of Croatia

Mr. Matthew Wee Yik KeongChief Executive Officer
Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises(SCORE)
Singapore

23

APPENDIX

2020 UNAFEI PARTICIPANTS
THE 174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Overseas Participants
Ms. Ana Cristina Bandeira Lins

Federal Prosecutor
Office of Federal Prosecution in Sao Paulo State
Federal Prosecution Service
BrazilMs. Marietta Roseline Behiri

Investigating Judge
Office of the President of the Court in Abidjan
Ministry of Justice
Côte d'Ivoire

Mr. Braulio Jose Feliz Cabrera

Assistant of General Director
General Directorate
National Police
Dominican Republic

Mr. Oka Parama Budita Anak Agung

Head of the District Court
District Court of Prabumulih
Supreme Court
Indonesia

Ms. WinantiClinical Psychologist
Ministry of Law & Human Rights
Narcotic Prison Class IIA Jakarta
Indonesia

Ms. Belinda Mumbua Kiilu

Principal State Counsel
International Law Division
Office of the Attorney General and Department ofJusticeKenya

Ms. Lilian Akinyi Otieno

Senior Probation Officer
Probation and Aftercare Service / Field Services
Probation and Aftercare Service
Kenya

25

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2020

Mr. Vanhnakone Chanthapanya

Director of Administrative and Social-Cultural Laws
Division
Department of Legislation
Ministry of Justice
Lao PDR

Mr. Justus Asante Kishindo

Senior Deputy Registrar
High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal
Malawi Judiciary
MalawiMr. Mohammad Azlin Bin Sadari

Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)
Crime Prevention & Community Safety Department
Royal Malaysia Police
Malaysia

Ms. Aminath Rasheed

Head of Crime Prevention Unit
Crime Prevention and Public Affairs
Maldives Police Service
Maldives

Mr. Soe Naing

Police Lieutenant Colonel
Training Department Police Officer Tactical Training
Institute
Myanmar Police Force
MyanmarMr. Laimo Asi

Deputy Commander
National Capital District / Central Command
Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary
Papua New Guinea

Mr. R. Pathirannehelage Don P.P. Ratnayake

High Court Judge
Judicial Service Commission
Judiciary
Sri Lanka

Ms. Chotima Suraritthidham

Director
Juvenile Observation and Protection Center
Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection
Ministry of Justice
Thailand

Ms. Supattra Pakasith Warotamasikkhadit

Senior Professional Level Officer
Office of Justice Affairs
Ministry of Justice
Thailand26

APPENDIX

Japanese Participants
Ms. HAYASHI Kyoko

Chief of Planning and Coordination Division
Yokohama Probation Office

Ms. INADA Mitsuyo

Chief of General Affairs Division
Chugoku Regional Parole Board

Mr. ISHIHARA Junichi

Principal Supervisor
International Affairs Division
Fuchu Prison

Mr. MATSUMURA Tadanori

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Ms. MIYAGAWA Tsubura

Chief Instructor
Okinawa Juvenile Training School for GirlsMr. SHIRAISHI Atsushi

Judge
Mito District/Family Court
Tsuchiura Branch

Ms. TATEOKA Yoshiko

Deputy Chief Family Court Investigating Officer
Fukuoka Family Court

27

PART TWORESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 112Papers Presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of
the Asian Criminological Society

UNAFEI

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
REDUCING REOFFENDING: THE KYOTO CONGRESS WORKSHOP AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
ISHIHARA Kayo*I. INTRODUCTION
From 7 to 12 March 2021, the 14th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice(hereafter referred to as “the Kyoto Congress”) was held in Kyoto, Japan. The United Nations Congress on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (“the Crime Congress”) is held every five years and is the United
Nations’ largest meeting in the field of criminal justice. The most up-to-date and important criminal justiceissues are discussed at the Crime Congress, and in its recent practice, a political declaration is adopted,
which sets the goal to be pursued for the following five years, up until the next Crime Congress. The UN
Member States and the international community are expected to follow-up on what had been agreed upon
and to take steps to implement the provisions of the political declaration.
The Kyoto Congress’s overall theme was “Advancing crime prevention, criminal justice and the rule oflaw: towards the achievement of 2030 Agenda”. The Kyoto Congress focused its discussion on four agenda
items, as well as four workshop topics, each corresponding to one of the four related agenda items. At the
Kyoto Congress, a political declaration entitled the “Kyoto Declaration on Advancing Crime Prevention,
Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law: Towards the Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development” (hereafter, referred to as “the Kyoto Declaration”) was adopted.
The United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders (UNAFEI) is an international training institute established upon an agreement between the United
Nations and the Japanese government. UNAFEI is one of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network Institutes (PNIs), and as such, has the role to contribute to the development
and implementation of the UN policies in the field of criminal justice. At the Kyoto Congress, as a PNI,
UNAFEI was responsible for organizing one of its formal components – Workshop 2 on “Reducing Reoffending:Identifying Risks and Developing Solutions”, which also served the discussion under Agenda Item 4 on
“Integrated approaches to challenges facing the criminal justice system”.
Taking the position of the Deputy Director of UNAFEI from October 2017 to March 2021, I had theprivilege to be responsible for the preparation and organization of Workshop 2. Based on my experience, I
would like to briefly overview the discussions and the outcomes of the Workshop, and also look at its impacts
on the future developments of UN criminal justice policies.
Please note that the comments and thoughts below on the Workshop outcomes and the future developments
are my personal and professional views and do not necessarily reflect those of UNAFEI, the UN or any otherorganization.

II. WORKSHOP 2 AND ITS OUTCOMES
A. Workshop Concept1 and Panel Compositions
Reducing reoffending will lead to fewer victims, greater community safety and less pressure on, and＊Director, General Affairs Department, Osaka High Public Prosecutors Office; Former Deputy Director, UNAFEI.
  For the detailed Workshop concept, please refer to the Background Paper for the Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9) <https://
undocs.org/A/CONF.234/9>, supplemented by the Working Paper on “Developments regarding crime prevention andcriminal justice as a result of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic” (Section IV.B refers to Workshop 2) (A/CONF.234/15) <https://undocs.org/A/CONF.234/15>. These two documents are the UN’s official papers for the Kyoto
Congress prepared by the UNODC Secretariat.
1

31

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
lower costs for, the criminal justice system. The goal of reducing reoffending will not be sufficiently achieved
if we only seek to prevent offenders from committing a new crime. Offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration
into society should be pursued, so that the offenders will desist from crime and be law-abiding and productive
citizens. This will contribute to building peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, asprescribed in Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ensuring that “no one will be left behind”.
It is evident and widely known that an offender cannot be rehabilitated by a penalty or imprisonment
alone. Offender rehabilitation and reintegration is naturally a long process that can only be accomplishedwith continuous, timely and adequate interventions and support, and with the involvement of various players– not only from criminal justice authorities – that can offer necessary assistance to help offenders overcome
personal, social and other barriers and to increase offenders’ personal strengths and assets.
Based on such perspectives, Workshop 2 on reducing reoffending was composed of three panels guided
by a keynote speech by Professor Fergus McNeill of the University of Glasgow, which addressed theoverarching concept of rehabilitation and desistance as well as its key aspects and considerations. The threepanels were as follows:- Panel I: Creating Rehabilitative Prison Environments;- Panel II: Community-Based Approaches that Support Desistance; and- Panel III: Taking a Multifaceted Approach to Ensure Continuous Support and Services for .
Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Offenders.
Whereas the first and second panels focused on challenges and good practices at the two major procedural
stages for rehabilitation, i.e., prison and the community-based interventions, the third panel looked at various
aspects to facilitate offender rehabilitation and good practices responding to offenders’ multifaceted needs
with the involvement of various public and private stakeholders.
Each panel consisted of presentations from 4-5 panellists/speakers followed by the floor discussion with
the Member States representatives and other participants. To ensure practical discussions that are useful tothe whole international community, careful consideration was made in the selection of panellists/speakers so
as to reflect various types of practices from different parts of the world (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America,
Latin America, and the Middle East), representing both developed and developing systems.
B. Summary of Workshop Discussions2Workshop 2 was chaired by Dr. Matti Joutsen,3 and the panel discussion was moderated by Mr. Seto
Takeshi, Director of UNAFEI. Dr. Kittipong Kittiyarak, the former Executive Director of the Thailand
Institute of Justice (PNI co-sponsor of Workshop 2) delivered opening remarks.
1. Keynote SpeechProfessor Fergus McNeill of the University of Glasgow delivered a keynote speech that applied to all
three panels. The keynote speech stressed the importance of reducing reoffending, rehabilitation andreintegration, and addressed key principles and factors required for rehabilitation and desistance. It waspointed out that punitive responses have enhanced social disintegration, leading to more reoffending, and that
there is a growing evidence base to suggest that stigmatization and criminal punishment actually slow the
rehabilitative process. Professor McNeill introduced three principles crucial for rehabilitative interventions:parsimony (no more intervention than necessary), proportionality and productiveness (the form and focus of
the approaches should be on positive efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate). Some other essential points weredelivered, among others, supporting desistance requires respect for diversity, work with social relations,enabling self-determination, providing practical support (housing, employment etc.), and recognizing andcelebrating change. Also, he pointed out that public participation and social reintegration programmes are
critical to helping offenders along their path to lasting change, and that prisons can be places of change and2  It is expected that UNAFEI will publish all the presentations and reports of the Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress.
   As a Finnish delegate, Dr. Joutsen was elected by the Congress as the Chair of Committee II, which handled plenary
meeting sessions for Agenda Items 4 and 6, and Workshops 2 and 4. As the special advisor of the Thailand Institute ofJustice, the PNI co-sponsor of Workshop 2, Dr. Joutsen had been involved in all the preparatory stages and took the role ofthe keynote speaker of Panel II.
332

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
growth for some offenders under rehabilitative environments, established through normalization, bureaucratic
legitimacy, humanity, staff professionalism, offering help and assistance, and adequate and transparent
organization and consistency.
2. Panel I
Panel I focused on rehabilitative prison-based efforts and had four panellists from the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Namibia, Argentina and Norway.
Ms. Vera Tkachenko, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer of the UNODC, presented global
challenges in the prison situation, including overcrowding and Covid-19 impacts. She introduced good
examples from UNODC technical assistance programmes: one from Kazakhstan on justice reform, which
successfully reduced the prison population, and one successful example from Kyrgyzstan, in the capacitybuilding of prison officers and rehabilitation programmes for violent extremist prisoners, which fostered good
relationships between prison staff and prisoners, and resulted in increased prison security.
Ms. Mariana Martin, Deputy Commissioner-General of the Namibian Correctional Service demonstrated
a good example of evidence-based (risk-need-responsivity principle-based) prison programmes in Namibia,
learning from established Canadian practices and modifying them to adjust to the local context in Namibia.
Mr. Emiliano Blanco, President of the Latin America Chapter of the International Corrections and Prisons
Association and the former National Director of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Argentina, explained
how and why corruption in prison undermines offender rehabilitation and elaborated on a number of anticorruption efforts in the Federal Penitentiary Service of Argentina with a view to establishing rehabilitative
prison environments.
Ms. Heidi Bottolfs, Deputy Director General of the Directorate of Corrections, Norway, introduced theNorwegian implementation of the “principle of normality”, the idea that life in prison should be as close as
possible to life in the community, such as the provision of educational services in prison by the local service
provider in the same manner as in the community.
After the presentations, a number of participants introduced their countries’ initiatives to foster
rehabilitative prison environments during the floor discussion.
3. Panel II
Panel II started with the keynote speech by Dr. Matti Joutsen, elaborating the importance of active andadequate use of non-custodial measures and community-based options while avoiding the risk of net widening,referring to the reality of excessive use of imprisonment and its negative impacts, and to the fact that most
low- and medium-risk offenders need no support, whereas high-risk offenders and vulnerable groups, including
the poor and the marginalized, greatly require support. He further elaborated that treatment in the community“works” in connection with high-quality, well-targeted, well-resourced and well-supported interventions.
The Panel discussion was followed by four panellists from Canada, Croatia, Kenya and the Philippines.
Ms. Jennifer Oades, Chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada, introduced the Canadian practice ofparole with a very high success rate and the background behind Canada’s success, including evidence-basedrisk assessment, decisions of highly qualified board members and specialized training. She also introduced
the “Judges to Jails” programme which gives opportunities to judges to learn about prisons and parole.
Ms. Jana Špero, Director General of the Directorate for Prison System and Probation, Ministry of Justiceand Public Administration of Croatia, explained how Croatia successfully established a new probation service
in a few years by taking a step-by-step approach. The Croatian experience demonstrated a successful
example of introducing a new community corrections system from scratch while reducing prison populationand obtaining support from the public and cooperating agencies.
Lady Justice Teresia Matheka of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru introduced the Kenyan experienceand challenges in juvenile justice to ensure the best interests of children, where all relevant authorities, suchas the police department, prison department, children services department, prosecution, judiciary and33

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
probation department, came to engage in continuous collaboration and information-sharing, and how they
made use of technical assistance in its development.
Dr. Manuel Co, the former Administrator of Parole and Probation Administration of the Philippines
explained how the Philippines made effective use of the barangay – the smallest unit of local government – inthe restorative justice process, and that the use of such process and the involvement of the community
members has positively impacted offender rehabilitation.
During the floor discussion, participants supported the importance of community-based approaches,
support in the community and public awareness.
4. Panel III
Panel III dealt with a multifaceted and multi-stakeholder approach, and therefore had panellists
representing various public and private bodies. Only one panellist represented a Member State, namely,
Japan. The other four panellists were from international or non-governmental organizations, that is, Safer
Foundation, an NGO in the United States; Penal Reform International (PRI), an international NGO; Kriminellas
Revansch I Samhället (Criminals Return into Society, or KRIS), an NGO located in Sweden; and Hedaya, aninternational institute located in the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Imafuku Shoji, Assistant Vice-Minister and Director-General of the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry ofJustice of Japan, addressed Japan’s comprehensive government-wide strategies for reducing reoffending
whereby various rehabilitative initiatives are undertaken on the basis of enhanced public-public and publicprivate partnerships with a view to responding to various areas of offenders’ needs. As part of such initiatives,
the Japanese probation service’s coordination efforts for post-release accommodation support were elaborated,
where close cooperation with prisons, volunteer probation officers and other public and private bodies, etc.
helps to respond to the specific needs of offenders.
Ms. Sodiqa Williams, General Counsel and Vice President of External Affairs of the Safer Foundation,
presented Safer’s activities in Chicago and the State of Illinois, providing a full spectrum of services for reentry of offenders to help them gain employment etc. She explained the vulnerability of offenders in the area
where high unemployment rate, low education level, poverty etc. have been observed, and elaborated on
Safer’s Prison Emergency Early Release Response (PEERR) programme, which addresses the needs ofoffenders from a holistic perspective in partnership with various service providers, starting from triage to
identify the immediate needs of people returning from incarceration.
Ms. Olivia Rope, the Executive Director of PRI, emphasized the importance of evidence-based genderresponsive interventions, and elaborated on PRI’s technical assistance project in Georgia for women in prison.
In the project, upon identified needs for women prisoners and their children who have experienced violenceand discrimination, she elaborated on the focus areas of PRI’s project, such as economic empowerment(vocational training, employment and small business management support etc.), offering shelter, and legal andpsychological counselling.
Mr. Ali Reunanen, Secretary-General of KRIS, which is operated by former offenders and addicts, started
by explaining his personal history of criminal behaviour and drug addiction and how he experienced lifechange. He explained how KRIS helps offenders to change their criminal lifestyles and gives them a message
of hope and support for change to a new lifestyle, and demonstrated the important role of peer support inoffender rehabilitation.
Ms. Maria Cristina Mattei, Program Manager of Hedayah, the international centre of excellence forcountering violent extremism, presented Hedayah’s free online monitoring, measurement and evaluation tool
“MASAR” and its applicability to all forms of offender rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. She
introduced a case study on a Dutch recidivism reduction programme that used MASAR to track reoffendingby terrorism offenders, and demonstrated how MASAR helps practitioners design and identify smarter goals
for treatment programmes, select appropriate indicators and analyse the results.
In the floor discussion following the presentations, a number of delegations and participants emphasized
the importance of various re-entry support with multi-stakeholder partnerships.
34

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS

5. Other Notable Discussions(a) Discussion on Covid-19 impacts
During the panel discussion, the impact of Covid-19 was reported by panellists, speakers and participants.
The Kyoto Congress was postponed for nearly one year from the original schedule4 due to the Covid-19
crisis, and its impacts in relation to the Workshop topic were discussed. To summarize, first, it was pointed
out that the failure in rehabilitating offenders by punitive responses has been exacerbated by the Covid-19
pandemic, and that prison conditions deteriorated under the spread of Covid-19, especially in overcrowded
prisons. Second, with a view to ensuring normalization and rehabilitative prison environments, an example
was reported where digital communication and digital training was enhanced to maintain and strengthen
contact with the outside world during the Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, examples of strengthened use of
online communications between the released offenders and supporters in the community were reported.
Third, in response to the deteriorating situation under the Covid-19 crisis, the increased importance of theuse of non-custodial measures and early release was recognized. Further, noting negative impacts of Covid-19,
enhanced needs for employment support and aftercare for released offenders were identified.
(b) The idea to develop new UN standards and norms
In the deliberations, outcomes of several related ancillary meetings which took place before Workshop 2
were introduced. The ancillary meetings at the Crime Congress have the role to contribute to the related
Workshop discussions, and therefore, their outcomes and key summaries were introduced to enrich theWorkshop discussion. In particular, an idea to develop new UN standards and norms on reducing reoffending
was proposed as the outcomes of two ancillary meetings: the “World Congress for Community Volunteers
Supporting Offender Reintegration” (organized by the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice ofJapan and UNAFEI) and “Five Years of the Nelson Mandela Rules” (organized by the Raoul Wallenberg
Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI)).5
C. Outcomes
1. Wrap-up and Report to the Plenary Meeting
At the end of the Workshop, the scientific moderator, Mr. Seto, wrapped up the discussion. Following theWorkshop, he was invited to report to the plenary meeting session, which handled the related Agenda Item
“Integrated approaches to challenges facing the criminal justice system”, on the outcome of the Workshop 2
discussion. There, he reported the Workshop outcomes as follows:
The Workshop demonstrated that offender rehabilitation and reintegration into society is critical tobuilding inclusive, sustainable societies as envisaged in the 2030 Agenda. Ensuring rehabilitative
processes and environments throughout all stages and pathways leading to successful reintegration is
crucial. In pursuing this, four key points were highlighted by the discussions: (i) first, criminal justicesystems should respect proportionality and seek to impose the least restrictive sanctions possible, andshould make active use of non-custodial measures in line with the UN standards and norms, while
avoiding the risk of mass supervision and net-widening; (ii) second, offenders must receive effective,
evidence-based interventions and support responding to each individual’s specific needs, both in prison
and in the community; (iii) third, continuity of care and support must be ensured; and (iv) fourth,offender rehabilitation and reintegration practices should be developed and implemented by amultifaceted approach involving all relevant stakeholders. . . . I am very pleased to report that it wassuggested that the good practices addressed during the workshop might serve as a basis for thedevelopment of model strategies to reduce reoffending. As the moderator for the workshop, I wish to
express my support for the development of such model strategies and believe they will play a significant
role in reducing reoffending in this decade of action as we move toward 2030 and the achievement of
the Sustainable Development Goals (emphasis added).
2. Chair’s Summary
The Workshop outcomes are publicized as part of the Chair’s summary in the UN’s official Crime Congress4  Originally, the Kyoto Congress was scheduled in April 2020.
   I was a panellist at the RWI ancillary meeting and suggested developing new UN standards and norms on reducing
reoffending, which was supported by other panellists and participants.
5

35

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
report (A/CONF.234/16, para. 158).6 As for Workshop 2, the conclusion and 12 practical recommendations
form the heart of the Chair’s summary.
The conclusion starts with the sentence saying that reducing reoffending is “critical to building inclusive,
sustainable societies as envisaged in the 2030 Agenda.” This clarifies the direct link between reducing
reoffending and the achievement of the SDGs, emphasizing the importance of reducing reoffending in thisregard.
The next sentence highlights the important elements in reducing reoffending stating that “criminal
justice interventions should be in line with the principle of the least restrictive sanction and the principle ofproportionality, with the aim of rehabilitating offenders in the community whenever possible, and that
programmes to reduce reoffending needed to be multifaceted, involve all relevant stakeholders and ensure thenecessary continuity of care within rehabilitative environments.” This should be understood as the “guiding
principle” in reducing reoffending and can be broken down into four essential elements.
To elaborate, first, in deciding sanctions and case dispositions, the principle of the least restrictive sanction
and the principle of proportionality should be respected. These two principles are both essential and equallyimportant to accomplish criminal justice and rehabilitative purposes. However, given the reality in many
jurisdictions where punitive approaches and excessive use of imprisonment prevail, this conclusion part puts
more emphasis on seeking the possibility of community-based options based on the principle of the least
restrictive sanction. This principle is basically derived from human rights considerations. Moreover, it serves
rehabilitative perspectives, as the application of this principle will lead to active use of non-custodial measuresand community-based interventions, which offers increased chances of success for offender rehabilitation.
This way of thinking is based on the understanding that incarceration generally entails negative impacts onsocial reintegration, such as stigmatization and disconnection with community ties (e.g. family, employment),
whereas community-based approaches are generally more conducive to rehabilitation and reintegration inthat such options enable providing necessary assistance while maintaining the offender’s life in the community.
Of course, decisions, including for community-based sanctions, should be “proportionate”, considering thegravity of the offence and other factors.
Second, the “programmes” for offender rehabilitation should be multifaceted and thus should involve
various stakeholders. Offender rehabilitation and reintegration requires interventions and support tailored toindividual’s needs. Therefore, “programmes”, in other words, interventions and support, must cover various
aspects to strengthen the offender’s social environment, such as employment, housing, healthcare, welfare,education, childcare, family relations, etc., and enhance personal aspects, such as self-esteem, self-efficacy,social skills, and so forth. However, it is impossible for the criminal justice authorities alone to provide all thenecessary types of support. Thus, a multi-stakeholder approach which requires the involvement of various
stakeholders is essential and key to successful reintegration. The Kyoto Declaration has a set of provisions
dedicated to “reducing reoffending through rehabilitation and reintegration” (paragraphs 37-42),7 andparagraph 39 promotes multi-stakeholder partnerships to reduce reoffending, referring to governmental
inter-agency coordination, public-private partnerships and involvement of employers and community
volunteers.
Third, in offender rehabilitation, continuity of care should be ensured. Rehabilitation and social reintegration
is a long process where the offender faces many difficulties at each stage. Therefore, treatment should be
followed-up on and support should be provided continuously. Especially, the gaps in the continuity of care/
support are often seen at the transition stage when the offenders are released from prison and restart theirlives in the community. Adequate interventions and support addressing needs at this stage are of vital
importance for successful rehabilitation. This has posed challenges in many developed and developing
systems. Bearing in mind that a large portion of offenders go to prison and struggle to rehabilitate in thecommunity after release, continuity of interventions and support, in particular from prison to the community,
should be underlined.
Fourth, rehabilitative environments should be ensured throughout all criminal justice processes. This is6  <https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/Congress/documents/ACONF234_16_V2102028.pdf>.
  <https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/Congress/21-02815_Kyoto_Declaration_ebook_rev_cover.pdf>.

736

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
identified as the key guiding concept in pursuing the goal of reducing reoffending. The need for rehabilitativeenvironments and processes applies to all the pathways and stages, including the criminal proceedings,
decision-making process for penalty and treatment, the prison-based treatment stage, and life in thecommunity. Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Kyoto Declaration refer to promoting rehabilitative environments
in prison and in the community, and they underscore the importance of this principle.
Following the conclusion, the Chair’s summary raises 12 points to be considered, which form the practical
recommendations of the Workshop 2.
Hereafter, I would like to elaborate and comment on the recommendations enumerated in subparagraphs(a) to (l) of paragraph 158 of the report, touching upon the links to the Workshop discussions (therecommendations are cited below in italics).
(a) With a view to reducing reoffending, Member States should undertake to collect relevant statistics,
identify the root causes of offending and reoffending, including the impact of poverty, unemployment,
homelessness, discrimination and health – in particular mental health – issues, evaluate social
reintegration approaches and share data, research and evaluation outcomes nationally and internationally;...
This encourages the collection and use of data for evidence-based strategies and interventions. Statistics
and research results have been proved effective in forming adequate strategies and establishing evidencebased interventions which “work”. Also, learning from other jurisdictions’ evidence-based practices, andmodifying them to adjust to the country’s local context, is an efficient and effective way to implement newpractices, as demonstrated in the good practice of Namibia introduced in the Panel I discussion.
(b) Member States are encouraged to develop effective interventions for the rehabilitation and social
reintegration of offenders, recognizing that this is crucial to public safety and social inclusiveness,
applying a realistic, step-by-step approach that considers the availability of resources and the feasibilityof steps to be taken within a certain time frame, refers to experiences in other jurisdictions and explores
the cost-effective use of information technology; . . .
This emphasizes a realistic approach in the implementation of rehabilitative approaches, in light of what
is practically effective in developing new measures and practices. The example of Croatia establishing its
new probation service with a step-by-step approach (Panel II) serves as a good practice in this regard. Also,
this recommendation refers to the use of information technology which enables wide dissemination of costeffective measures, as shown in the example of MASAR presented by Hedayah in Panel III.
(c) Member States are also encouraged to apply a multi-stakeholder approach to the social reintegrationof offenders, involving the public sector at both the State and local levels, the private sector, faith-basedorganizations, academia, volunteers and community members. Member States should seek to promote
public-public and public-private partnerships, to ensure continuity of support and to help offenders tosecure employment and housing and access to legal, social and medical services, as well as educational
opportunities and vocational training; . . .
Further to the reference in the conclusion and the Kyoto Declaration provisions, this recommendationelaborates on the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach to address various needs, which were fully
discussed in Panel III and touched upon by a number of other panellists and participants. In addition, thisrecommendation expressly raises key areas in need of continuous support, such as employment, housing,education, etc. which requires non-criminal-justice players’ involvement.
(d) Acknowledging that public understanding and cooperation are key elements of the reintegration of
offenders into society, Member States are invited to undertake awareness-raising activities directed at thegeneral public, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, volunteers, employers and the family
members of offenders to increase understanding of the impact of both imprisonment and non-custodial
measures on victims, on the social reintegration of offenders and on public safety, and elicit public
support for the community reintegration of offenders; . . .

37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
This refers to awareness-raising, an essential issue to offender rehabilitation, especially where community
corrections is concerned. Awareness-raising includes promoting public acceptance, which targets the generalpublic, and a more in-depth awareness-raising, that is, understanding and cooperation by stakeholders whoare expected to coordinate with the authorities and provide support to offenders. This usually requires
substantial efforts to foster and is particularly crucial in promoting community-based approaches, which
require the acceptance of the offenders by the community at large, as well as the provision of support bymany players in various aspects. Effective approaches and methodologies will differ depending on the target
groups and the required level of awareness – for instance, whether the goal is to accept the idea of thecommunity-based approach or to directly help the offenders and provide them with assistance. In the latter
case, face-to-face direct consultation to alleviate the target’s concerns or give incentives can be an effective
approach. The Croatian experience in introducing its new probation service (Panel II) can be identified as agood example of effective awareness-raising.
(e) Member States are invited to recognize the effectiveness of rehabilitative community-based interventions
and ensure that a mandated, sufficiently resourced and adequately staffed public entity, such as a
dedicated probation service, is in place to manage, supervise and support offenders in the community.
Member States are also invited to take inspiration from successful experiences with the involvement ofcommunity volunteers who support the reintegration of offenders; . . .
This emphasizes the necessity and effectiveness of community-based interventions and encourages
Members States to establish probation services (or the like) to undertake community supervision and support.
Examples of Canada, Croatia, the Philippines (Panel II) and Japan (Panel III) demonstrated effective roles ofthe probation services in community supervision and support, or in the restorative justice process. In addition,use of community volunteers, such as the participation of volunteer probation officers in Japan etc, ishighlighted as a good practice to refer to.
(f) Member States are encouraged to implement penal responses guided by the principle of proportionality
and assessed by their ability to enable the reintegration of offenders; use imprisonment as a last resort,recognizing that the prison environment is generally less conducive to rehabilitation and social
reintegration than community-based measures; make use of an adequate and innovative array of noncustodial measures as alternatives to imprisonment and to pretrial detention, building on the Tokyo
Rules8 and the Bangkok Rules9; and consider the use of gender-responsive, child-friendly and humanrights-compliant restorative justice interventions, in view of their potential benefits for victims, theirvalue for the community affected by crime and their positive impact on the social reintegration of
offenders; . . .
This recommendation elaborates the first part of the “guiding principle” set out in the conclusion, i.e., theprinciple of least restrictive sanction and the principle of proportionality, and encourages the use ofcommunity-based measures. In the use of non-custodial measures, it refers to the relevant UN standards andnorms, as well as the value of adequate restorative justice interventions. However, as indicated in Panel II’s
keynote speech and the moderator’s wrap-up, it should be noted that community-based options should be
adequately used under this guiding principle, and their overuse leading to “mass supervision” and “netwidening”10 should be avoided.
(g) Member States are invited to establish rehabilitative prison environments, in line with the Nelson
Mandela Rules11 and the Bangkok Rules, by ensuring that prisoners are treated fairly, with the respect
due to their inherent dignity as human beings, and supported in their personal, judicial, moral andsocial rehabilitation; ensuring that prisoners’ lives in prison reflect life in the community; ensuring
8  The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures adopted in 1990.
   The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offender
adopted in 2010.
10
   See paragraph 4(e) of the Background Paper (A/CONF.234/9) which states “The overuse of non-custodial measures,
as well as their use without appropriate community support, can lead to ‘mass supervision’ and ‘net widening’, whereby
the number of persons controlled by the criminal justice system increases. The excessive use of supervision for low-risk
offenders may increase the reoffending risk, owing to unnecessary interventions.”
11
  The revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted in 2015.
938

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
proper prison administration and case management and addressing overcrowding, poor prison
conditions, violence in prisons and corruption; providing interventions, treatment programmes,
education, vocational training and work that are responsive to each individual’s specific risks and needs;
enabling offenders to maintain their community and family ties; and ensuring the recruitment of prison
staff who display an attitude supportive of the rehabilitation of offenders and investing in multidisciplinary
training for staff; . . .
If not treated properly, incarceration entails serious negative impacts on social reintegration stemmingfrom institutionalization and stigmatization, whereas under rehabilitative environments it could offer a “hookfor change”, a substantive step towards rehabilitation. Having this in mind, establishing rehabilitative prison
environments, which this recommendation focuses on, is the big issue for many jurisdictions whereimprisonment is the prevailing option, and in particular, where certain deteriorating situations, such as
overcrowding, corruption and violence exist. The recommendation addresses the issue multifacetedly: i)treating the prisoners fairly respecting their dignity, ii) supporting the prisoner from various aspects, iii)
“normalization” in prison life, iv) addressing challenges such as overcrowding, poor prison conditions, violence
and corruption and maintaining proper prison administration and case management, v) interventions tailored
to individual’s needs, vi) maintaining community ties while in prison, and vii) recruiting prison staff displaying
a supportive attitude for offender rehabilitation and providing them with multidisciplinary training. As
indicated in these points, rehabilitative “environments” refer to, but are not restricted to, interventions andtreatment provided to offenders. They also include every factor surrounding their individual prison life, suchas housing settings, legitimacy and adequacy in prison administration, prison staff professionalism, theprisoner’s willingness and participation in the rehabilitative treatments etc., and contacts with the outside
world. To elaborate further, for example, items i) and vii) will improve the relationship between prison staff
and the prisoners as in the example of Kyrgyzstan presented by the UNODC expert in Panel I. The
Norwegian experience discussed in Panel I is a good example of implementing item iii), supported by theefforts in line with item vii). The Argentine example demonstrates the importance of item iv), and items i),ii), v) and vi) are indicated as important factors in the keynote speech. The Namibian practices in Panel I andGeorgia’s women prison project introduced by PRI in Panel III are examples of good practices addressing
items ii) and v). Further, as referred to in the recommendation, these items are more or less addressed in
the relevant UN standards and norms, in particular, the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules12.
(h) Member States are encouraged to tailor interventions and treatment to the needs of each offender, inparticular those with specific needs, such as young people, the elderly, persons with disabilities, the poorand marginalized groups, and eliminate barriers to social reintegration;(i) Member States are also encouraged to develop and implement specific gender-responsive rehabilitation
and reintegration policies and programmes in line with the Bangkok Rules, based on research on specificbarriers faced by women in their rehabilitation, such as stigmatization, and on existing good practices;(j) In dealing with alleged offenders who are children, Member States are further encouraged to widen
the use of diversion from judicial proceedings and non-custodial measures and to ensure that deprivationof liberty is used as a measure of last resort and that any action taken promotes the rehabilitation andsocial reintegration of the child. Multisectoral cooperation was identified as a key requirement forachieving those objectives; . . .
These three recommendations address interventions etc. tailored to each individual’s needs, particularly
focusing on vulnerable groups with specific needs. Whereas (h) refers to a number of vulnerable groups, (i)and (j) focus on women and children, respectively. As for the need to respond to these people’s specific needs,
the Japanese practice introduced in Panel III of coordinating a prisoner’s accommodation after release taking
account of his/her specific needs constitutes a good example. Also, PRI’s presentation elaborating specificneeds for women (Panel III) and Kenyan multi-agency practices to ensure the “best interest of children” aregood examples that support (i) and (j), respectively.

12  See especially rules 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 58-63, 74-82, 89, 91-94, 98, 106, 107 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, and rules 4, 12, 19-21, 26-52
of the Bangkok Rules.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112(k) Member States are encouraged to share information on promising practices and consider thedevelopment, under the auspices of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice andwith the support of UNODC, of model strategies to reduce reoffending that reflect, among others, thegood practices discussed during the workshop; . . .
Unlike other recommendations which refer to measures to improve rehabilitative systems and practices,
this recommendation suggests developing new UN standards and norms on reducing reoffending, in the formof “model strategies”. This constitutes a cornerstone for the future development of the UN criminal justicepolicy, as I elaborate later. This idea was provoked during the floor discussion which introduced the outcomesof the two related ancillary meetings.
(l) Member States are also encouraged to support capacity-building efforts for criminal justice practitioners
aimed at reducing reoffending and are invited to consider seeking technical assistance from UNODC,
the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice programme network, other international andregional organizations and relevant non-governmental stakeholders.
This recommendation refers to capacity-building and technical assistance by the UNODC, PNIs such as
UNAFEI and other relevant stakeholders. Good examples of technical assistance were introduced by the
UNODC (Panel I), Kenya (Panel II), PRI and Hedaya (Panel III) at the Workshop 2 discussion. Based on thisrecommendation and the relevant provisions of the Kyoto Declaration etc., UNAFEI will develop training
programmes on reducing reoffending to follow-up on the Kyoto Congress and the Kyoto Declaration, bearing
in mind the guiding principle and elements highlighted in other recommendations.

III. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
A. Impact of Workshop 2 and the Kyoto Congress
As discussed above, Workshop 2 was concluded with a set of recommendations including one suggesting
the development of new UN model strategies on reducing reoffending, under the auspices of the Commission
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), the UN’s policymaking organ in the field of criminal
justice.
Also, at the plenary meeting following the Workshop, the same idea to develop new standards and norms
was proposed by Japan, the host country of the Kyoto Congress, which obtained support from the floor.
Further, the Kyoto Declaration has a series of provisions on the issue of reducing reoffending, meaning that
this issue is one of the focus areas for intensive follow-up.
Given all this background, at the thirtieth session of the CCPCJ in May 2021 (two months after the Kyoto
Congress), a “draft resolution” entitled “Reducing reoffending through rehabilitation and reintegration” wasadopted, which is expected to be adopted by the General Assembly as a “resolution” later this year.13 (“Draft
resolutions” of the CCPCJ are sent to the Economic and Social Council, which in turn requests adoption by
the General Assembly.) This draft resolution, proposed by the Japanese government as the host country of
the Kyoto Congress, has a set of provisions which, among others, encourages the Member States to develop
comprehensive strategies or action plans to reduce reoffending through effective interventions, to promote a
rehabilitative environments in prison and in the community, and to promote multi-stakeholder partnerships
to reduce reoffending. Moreover, most importantly, paragraph 5 requests:
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, … to convene an expert group meeting to share
information on promising practices to reduce reoffending, with a view to developing model strategies
on reducing reoffending, which can serve as useful tools for Member States, taking into accountrelevant provisions in the existing standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice,current developments, research, tools and the outcome of the deliberations of the Fourteenth United
Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (emphasis added).

13

   The CCPCJ approved the Kyoto Declaration and adopted another draft resolution to be sent to the General Assembly
upon the ECOSOC’s approval which endorses the Kyoto Declaration. Therefore, the Kyoto Declaration will be a part of theGeneral Assembly resolution upon its adoption.

40

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
Upon its adoption by the General Assembly, this provision will be the basis for the UNODC and theinternational community to take steps to develop new UN model strategies on reducing reoffending, startingwith an expert group meeting.
From this (draft) resolution and given all other background, it is evident that, in addition to the relevant
provisions of the Kyoto Declaration (paragraphs 37-42), the outcome of Workshop 2 as summarized in the
Chair’s summary and good practices introduced at the Workshop will form the basis of the new model
strategies. In addition, the content of the Background Paper for Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9), supplemented
by Section IV.B of the Working Paper on “Developments regarding crime prevention and criminal justice asa result of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic” (A/CONF.234/15),14 the UN’s two official documents
for Workshop 2, should also constitute the basis. This is because they elaborate in detail on what was
discussed in Workshop 2, including points and other relevant practices that were not expressly referred in
the Workshop deliberations due to time constraints.
B. Thoughts for the New Model Strategies
The draft resolution adopted at the thirtieth CCPCJ says that the new model strategies should take into
account the provisions of the existing standards and norms in addition to the Kyoto Congress deliberations,etc. There are a number of UN standards and norms dealing with the treatment of offenders. The new model
strategies should, of course, harmonize with these existing instruments. Therefore, I would like to analyse
what is covered and missing in the existing UN standards and norms vis-à-vis the Workshop outcomes, inorder to explore how and under what approach the new model strategies should be developed.
The most basic and important existing instruments are the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Tokyo Rules.
The Nelson Mandela Rules deal with prison issues. Concluded recently in 2015 as the revision of the 1955
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the content is quite comprehensive, addressing
all major current challenges and key notions. In fact, as stated above, the Rules basically refer to the issues
raised in the Workshop recommendation provision on rehabilitative prison environments (para. 158(g)).
Moreover, in the 2015 revision, reducing reoffending and facilitating offender reintegration is clarified as partof the “purpose of imprisonment”15  and thereby added value from a rehabilitative perspective. However,since the Rules are basically derived from human rights requirements and ensuring humane treatment, theirfocus is not primarily on achieving the goal of social reintegration and desistance, although humane andhuman-rights-compliant treatment promote rehabilitative environments.
The Tokyo Rules deal with a broad spectrum of non-custodial measures and refer to “implementation” of
non-custodial measures such as supervision and treatment processes, and to the use of volunteers and othercommunity resources. However, the Tokyo Rules focus more on having and applying non-custodial options,and the reference to community-based treatment is restricted and very brief. As such, the Tokyo Rules are
not sufficient as norms for community corrections.
In addition to these two basic “Rules”, there are several instruments which deal with treatment of specifictypes of offenders or specific procedures and interventions. To name the major ones, the Bangkok Rules
provide gender-responsive norms for women to supplement the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Tokyo Rules.
Also, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing
Rules) and the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines)
cover considerations for juvenile offenders and delinquents. “Basic principles on the use of restorative justiceprogrammes in criminal matters” deal with principles for the adequate use of restorative justice programmes.
These instruments cover certain parts of the Workshop outcomes, but likewise, do not necessarily focus on
14

  See note 1.
  For instance, compare Rule 4.1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules with Rule 58 of the previous Standard Minimum Rules for theTreatment of Prisoners (the 1955 Rules). Rule 4.1 of the Mandela Rules states, “The purposes of a sentence of imprisonment…are primarily to protect society against crime and to reduce recidivism. Those purposes can be achieved only if the periodof imprisonment is used to ensure,… the reintegration of such persons into society upon release so that they can lead a lawabiding and self-supporting life”, whereas Rule 58 of the 1955 Rules states “The purpose and justification of a sentence ofimprisonment…is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonmentis used to ensure,…that upon his return to society the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and selfsupporting life.”
15

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
offender rehabilitation and reintegration.
Therefore, community corrections guidelines and practices, provisions for specific types of offenders
other than women and children, and guiding principles governing rehabilitation and rehabilitative processes
can be identified as the major gaps in the existing standards and norms.
Having said that, here I would like to pose a question which is, should the new model strategies simply
focus on these gaps? My answer is definitely no. Now, I would like to again call attention to two of thefundamental elements of the guiding principles for reducing reoffending – ensuring continuity of care andensuring rehabilitative environments throughout the process (the third and fourth elements discussed in
II.C.2). Absent these elements, the model strategies will not function as useful guiding tools for reducing
reoffending. In order to ensure continuity of care, just having provisions relevant to the “gap areas”, or only
on the “transition phases” do not suffice. An overarching approach looking at the whole process, starting fromthe contact with criminal justice or other relevant authorities through the social reintegration and desistancephase, allows effective continuity of care. Also, as the most essential key principle, rehabilitative environments
and processes should be ensured throughout all stages. This requires that the standards and norms embracea holistic approach covering the whole process from rehabilitative perspectives. In addition, a multistakeholder approach (another crucial element of the guiding principles), which constitutes a means to enableeffective rehabilitation, applies to all stages and increases its importance to achieve rehabilitative goals. And
thus, rehabilitative purposes should expressly come up front. Therefore, in order to develop clauses focusedon a good rehabilitative multi-stakeholder approach, an approach that just fills the gaps will lack many
important parts. Therefore, the new model strategies should take an overarching, or holistic, approach,shedding light on rehabilitative purposes, which establishes a new and independent concept from the existing
instruments.
On the other hand, we have to be mindful of the fact that many provisions of the existing standards andnorms do cover the areas which should be addressed and are effective for rehabilitative goals, whether or
not they are derived from rehabilitative or other purposes. In that case, duplication should not occur if it has
the effect of simply repeating in the new instrument that which is already provided in the existing standards
and norms. Rather, for instance, reference to the existing provisions in the new model strategies indicating
their rehabilitative effects (thereby adding value to the existing provisions) would be an appropriate approach.
In pursuing this, a more in-depth analysis on the existing standards and norms, including on their rehabilitative
impacts, will be important and should take place.
Also, detailed key notions, principles and examples pertaining to the major identified “gaps”, especially on
community corrections rules, should be developed and elaborated. Although we already have discussed anddeveloped initial key principles and identified many good examples through the preparation for, anddeliberations at, the Workshop, it is obvious that the examples and practices discussed are not enough to be
useful for every Member State and the whole international community. In addition, on top of what has been
already discussed, there will be a lot of room to explore effective approaches and examples of a multifaceted
and multi-stakeholder approach, as they are diverse in nature, affected by various social, cultural, political,
economic and other backgrounds and differences in existing community resources.

IV. CONCLUSION
During the discussions at the Kyoto Congress, it was reaffirmed that the goal of reducing reoffending
through offender reintegration is crucial for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. As mentioned, establishing
rehabilitative environments and processes throughout all stages is essential for this goal. Other key principles
and factors, as well as many good practices and commendable efforts, have been identified and introduced.
On the other hand, the international community faces many challenges to implement and put into practicewhat “works”.
The new UN model strategies, once provided, will be a cornerstone for enhancing rehabilitativeenvironments in many parts of the world. They will constitute good guidance for States and organizations
to take adequate steps in policymaking and practice, and will give grounds to facilitate public participation
and acceptance. Therefore, I am proud that UNAFEI’s efforts in activating discussion on this issue throughthe preparation and organization of the Workshop 2 largely contributed to the international community’s
42

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
decision to develop this important instrument, and I expect that UNAFEI will participate and substantiallycontribute to its future development.
Further, having in mind that the international community’s purpose should not be the development of the
instrument itself but its effective implementation in practice, technical assistance will play a very importantrole. I expect UNAFEI, as a technical assistance provider, as well as the PNI which led the discussion at the
Kyoto Congress (and which will presumably lead the discussion as it moves forward), will continue efforts to
explore best ways to establish rehabilitative environments and processes, and will continue to take a leadingrole in providing technical assistance on reducing reoffending, maintaining and strengthening partnerships
with the UNODC, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),16 the PNIs, relevant NGOs17 andMember States, for the better future.

16

   JICA is Japan’s official development assistance (ODA) provider agency, and a large majority of UNAFEI’s technicalassistance programmes are funded and co-sponsored by JICA.
17
  For instance, the Asian Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), an international NGO that, among other purposes, supports
UNAFEI’s activities, can be identified as a partner NGO.

43

PROMOTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REHABILITATIVEENVIRONMENTS IN THE ASEAN REGIONTAKAI Ayaka*

I. INTRODUCTION
Workshop 2 of the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice washeld from 8 to 9 March 2021 in the Committee Room at the Kyoto International Conference Center in Kyoto,
Japan. The United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders (UNAFEI), in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), sponsored Workshop 2 on
“Reducing Reoffending: Identifying Risks and Developing Solutions”, and it consisted of fruitful discussions
that explored strategies and solutions to reduce reoffending and facilitate offenders’ reintegration into society.
Reducing reoffending leads to fewer victims, greater community safety, and less pressure on and lower costs
for the criminal justice system, which is critical to building inclusive, sustainable societies as envisaged in the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
This report will introduce the status of community-based treatment focusing on the ASEAN region,
sharing the efforts that UNAFEI has been making to promote the implementation of rehabilitativeenvironments – a key issue highlighted by Workshop 2 to prevent reoffending. Whether in prison or in thecommunity, it is impossible for offenders to take steps toward rehabilitation if they are in harmful environments
in which they lack needed support. As the Chair of Workshop 2 recalled in the report, “programmes toreduce reoffending [need] to be multifaceted, involve all relevant stakeholders and ensure the necessary
continuity of care within rehabilitative environments.”1

II. UNAFEI’S RECENT ACTIVITIESUNAFEI is the oldest member of the Institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network (PNI) with a history of almost 60 years. For most of its history, UNAFEI has
long taken the role of assisting the implementation and development of rehabilitative environments andsystems in the ASEAN region. Some of the highlights of UNAFEI’s recent activities related to offender
treatment in the community are as follows.
A. The ASEAN plus Three Conference
In 2013, 2014 and 2015, the ASEAN plus Three Conference was held as an international forum for
ASEAN countries, China, South Korea and Japan. The forum was initiated by Thailand, and the purpose wasto share experience and gain knowledge on community-based treatment of offenders among the participating
countries. During the conference, it was recognized that the implementation of community-based treatment
varies from country to country, and that several countries face challenges in implementing it. Thereby,
international cooperation on probation and non-custodial measures was discussed and UNAFEI actively
joined the discussion as a PNI member. At the 2014 conference, the ASEAN Roadmap for Probation andNon-custodial Measures was adopted, which reflected the discussions at the conference and provided a planfor future cooperation.
B. The Seminars on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region
In response to the discussion at the ASEAN plus Three Conference, UNAFEI, in collaboration with theThai Department of Probation, the TIJ, the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice of Japan, and theJapan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) conducted a series of training seminars on promoting＊

Professor, UNAFEI.
  Report of the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, A/CONF.234/16 (26 March
2021).

1

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
community-based treatment for ASEAN countries from 2015 to 2016. These seminars were held as platforms
to discuss and exchange members’ knowledge and practices on key issues of non-custodial treatment, andmore specific needs of each country were identified.
C. The Third Country Training2 for CLMV Countries
From 2017 to 2019, the Thai Department of Probation and UNAFEI in collaboration with JICA, conducteda more country-focused programme targeting the CLMV countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and VietNam), where community-based approaches had either not been formally established or had not been fully
implemented. This training course took place in Thailand as a third country training programme involving
JICA.
D. UNODC/UNAFEI Joint Projects
Based on the success of these conferences and seminars above, UNAFEI started assisting the Cambodian
government bilaterally for its implementation of community-based treatment of offenders in collaboration
with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Cambodia has established a basic legislative framework for community-based treatment of offenders in
its criminal code and criminal procedure code, including the authorization of measures such as probation,
conditional release and so on. However the relevant authorities rarely use such legal provisions for thefollowing reasons: 1) lack of clarity and details mechanism as well as the lack of a responsible institution
within the provisions and 2) lack of experience and necessary resources to supervise persons under alternative
sentencing. Therefore, UNAFEI has been making efforts to raise awareness among officials as the first stepof implementation of the new system.
Also, since February 2021, UNAFEI, in partnership with the UNODC, has been assisting the Parole andProbation Administration of the Philippines in building capacity, especially in the assessment and treatment
of offenders using the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model as addressed at Workshop 2 of the Kyoto
Congress.

III. STATUS OF REHABILITATIVE ENVIRONMENTS IN THE ASEAN REGION
In many jurisdictions throughout the world, correctional environments, including pre-trial and postconviction detention, are overcrowded, underfunded, understaffed and vulnerable to corruption.3 These
environments expose offenders to harsh conditions that undermine, or entirely prevent, the ability ofcorrectional officers to provide rehabilitative treatment. Upon release from prison, offenders are likely to face
many challenges, including stigma and discrimination, which hinder their rehabilitation and reintegration in
general.4
The United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice have long recognized“social rehabilitation”5 as one of the principle aims of the deprivation of liberty.6 While the UN has not
adopted a formal definition of the term “rehabilitative environment”, it might be simply defined as any
correctional environment, whether institutional or community based, that is in compliance with relevant UN
standards and norms. From a practical perspective, a rehabilitative environment is one in which offenders2

  Third Country Training Program (TCTP) is a scheme in which JICA provides participants from developing countries witha technical training programme in collaboration with a Southern partner (i.e., a third country) for the purpose of transfer or
sharing of development experiences, knowledge and technology.
3
   Background Paper, Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions, A/CONF.234/9, paras.
6-10 (3 February 2020).
4
  Ibid. at para. 11.
5
   United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), United Nations
General Assembly resolution 70/175, Annex, Rule 93.1(b) (17 Dec. 2015). The Mandela Rules were first adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners in 1955 and amended in 1977 (seepara. 67(b)).
6
  Human rights in the administration of justice, General Assembly resolution 69/172, recitals (1 Dec. 2014) (“Recalling thatthe social rehabilitation and reintegration of persons deprived of their liberty shall be among the essential aims of thecriminal justice system, ensuring, as far as possible, that offenders are able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life upon
their return to society, . . .”).

46

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
will, at a minimum, receive adequate interventions including supervision and support for the purpose of
rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
As mentioned above, Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress consisted of fruitful discussions that explored
strategies and solutions to reduce reoffending and facilitate offenders’ reintegration into society, and it
concluded that ensuring rehabilitative processes and environments throughout all stages and pathways
leading to successful reintegration is crucial. As a result of the discussion at Workshop 2, four issues werehighlighted as the key concept of rehabilitative environments, which should be ensured at every stage of thecriminal justice process, and they are: (i) criminal justice systems should respect proportionality and seek toimpose the least restrictive sanctions possible, and should make active use of non-custodial measures in linewith the UN standards and norms, while avoiding the risk of mass supervision and net-widening; (ii) offenders
must receive effective, evidence-based interventions and support responding to each individual’s specificneeds, both in prison and in the community; (iii) continuity of care and support must be ensured; and (iv)
offender rehabilitation and reintegration practices should be developed and implemented by a multifaceted
approach involving all relevant stakeholders.
What follows is an overview of how these elements are being implemented in the ASEAN region,
presenting each country’s overall status with a brief description or good practices for each element. The
status of implementation of these elements in ASEAN countries described below is based on the reports ofthe seminars in which UNAFEI was involved,7 except where specifically stated otherwise.
A. Active Use of Non-custodial Measures
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures, known as the Tokyo Rules,
encourage the international community to facilitate the use of non-custodial measures, taking the humanrights, requirements of social justice and the rehabilitation needs of each offender into account.
While it is well-known that simply incarcerating offenders does not contribute to their rehabilitation or to
becoming law-abiding citizens, non-custodial measures are effective at reducing reoffending because they
ensure the connection between the offender and the community, and offenders who have strong connections
to their community and who care about the people around them are less likely to reoffend.
Here are typical examples of non-custodial measures that are considered to contribute to the preventionof recidivism by means of interventions conducted by the competent authority.
1. Probation
Probation, as used in this paper, refers to court-ordered, community-based treatment – a system in which
a person is placed under the supervision of the state and receives some kind of rehabilitative intervention,
often in conjunction with the suspension of the traditional criminal sentence.
Probation is the most used measure among more than half of the ASEAN countries. The ASEAN
countries with probation systems are Brunei Darussalam (Brunei), Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand and Viet Nam for adult offenders, and Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam for juvenile delinquents, or children in conflict with the law. The statusof probation in these countries is briefly explained below, but in countries other than these, although theintroduction of probation is being considered, it has not yet been implemented.
(a) Brunei
In Brunei, probation is in place for adult offenders and juvenile delinquents, and was established in 2010
under the Offenders (Probation and Community Service) Order of 2006 and the Children and Young Persons
Act (CYPA) of 2010. The Juvenile Court, which operates under the purview of the Subordinate Courts, wasalso established in 2010. Probation and community-based treatment fall under the responsibility of theProbation and Community Service Unit in the Protection and Rehabilitation Division, the Department ofCommunity Development, the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports.
7

  The Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region: Seminar Report (2015, TIJ); The Second
Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region: Seminar Report (2016, TIJ).

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112(b) Indonesia
In Indonesia, probation is implemented for adult offenders and juveniles. The duties and responsibilities
of probation officers are outlined in the 1917 Penal Code and the Juvenile Justice System Act of 2012, andare under the responsibility of the Correctional Division of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.
(c) Malaysia
In Malaysia, while there is no probation system for adult offenders, probation for children in conflict withthe law has been implemented by the Child Act 2001. The Department of Social Welfare of the Ministry of
Women, Family and Community Development is responsible for the rehabilitation of juveniles, and supervision
is conducted by probation officers who are Social Welfare Officers or Assistant Social Welfare Officers
appointed by the Minister with the support of members of Child Welfare Committees.
(d) Myanmar
In Myanmar, probation for juveniles has been implemented since the Child Law of 1993 and is under the
responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, while probation for adults is not in place yet.
(e) The Philippines
In the Philippines, a community-based treatment system has been implemented since the Adult Probation
Law of 1976 and is under the responsibility of the Parole and Probation Administration of the Departmentof Justice (PPA). Although the PPA takes care of some juvenile probationers, children in conflict with thelaw are mainly provided with community-based treatment under the responsibility of the Local Social
Welfare Development Officer of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.8(f) Singapore
In Singapore, probation systems for adult offenders and juveniles are in place based on the Probation of
Offenders Act (POA) and The Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA)9 under the responsibility of theProbation and Community Rehabilitation Service of the Ministry of Social and Family Development. Insteadof sentencing a person who has committed an offence to penal or correctional institutions, the Court may
make a Probation Order requiring him to be under the supervision of the Probation Officer or a Volunteer
Probation Officer.10(g) Thailand
In Thailand, probation services have been in place for adult offenders and juveniles, originating with
unofficial juvenile supervision that started in 1952. In 1956, the Penal Code was enacted and was also the firststatutory foundation of the probation services, which made it possible for judges to impose a suspended
sentence with the condition of probation. The Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice is the main
agency for administering both adult probation and juvenile probation.
(h) Viet Nam
In Viet Nam, laws such as the Criminal Code 2015, the Law on Amnesty 2008 and the Law on Criminal
Sentence Enforcement provide a legal framework for community-based treatment of offenders. Adult
offenders who receive suspended sentences are supervised by the Commune Peoples Committees (CPC),
which include government employees responsible for local governance, and juveniles who are subject to“compulsory education” (i.e. required to fulfil educational or work duties) in the commune are also supervised
by family or the CPC.
2. Conditional Release / Parole Supervision
Conditional release and parole supervision refer to a system in which prisoners are released into thecommunity prior to the expiration of their sentence on certain conditions and often under the supervision of
the relevant authorities after release. This scheme is effective for reintegration of offenders into society, for8

  Jeza Mae Sarah C. Sanchez, “Overview of Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare”, Resource Material Series No. 101, 104144 (UNAFEI, 2017), available at <https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No101/ No101_17_IP_Philippines.pdf>.
9
  Bernadette Alexander, “Community-based Rehabilitation of Offenders in Singapore”, Resource Material Series No. 96, 77-83(UNAFEI, 2015), available at <https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No96/No96_VE _Alexander_3.pdf>.
10
  <https://www.msf.gov.sg/about-MSF/our-people/Divisions-at-MSF/Social-Development-and-Support/.
Rehabilitation-and-Protection-Group/Pages/Probation-And-Community-Rehabilitation-Service.aspx>.

48

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
it enables offenders to obtain support and guidance in their real life in the community where offenders are
exposed to many challenges including stigma and discrimination. This scheme has been adopted in Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand for adult offenders. The status of each ASEAN country
that has introduced the scheme is briefly shown below, but in countries other than these, although theintroduction of the scheme is being considered, it has not yet been implemented as of 2015.
(a) Indonesia
In Indonesia, after serving two-thirds of the sentence, a prisoner who fulfils the requirements and has arecord of good behaviour as evaluated by prison and probation officers is given parole, and probation officers
conduct guidance and supervision in the community after release.
(b) Malaysia
In Malaysia, a parole system was implemented in 2008 based on the parole system in Australia. Parolees
are placed under the care and supervision of parole officers during the period of parole. Family members,
neighbours and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are also involved and play important roles not onlyin helping parolees but also in showing the public that acceptance of parolees will contribute to public safety.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, pre-parole investigation is conducted by officers at the Parole and Probation
Administration (PPA) to assess and evaluate if the applicant is qualified for parole, and the pre-parole report
is submitted to the Board of Pardons and Parole, which grants parole to qualified prisoners. Supervising
officers at the PPA also perform parole supervision with instructions and assistance for the rehabilitation ofparolees during the period of parole.
(d) Singapore
In Singapore, the Conditional Remission System (CRS) and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) was
introduced in 2014. CRS is the system to release prisoners with conditions by remission order after serving
two-thirds of their sentence for good conduct and behaviour, and among those under conditional remission,certain groups who are at risk of reoffending and also those who need more support for reintegration into
society have additional conditions imposed on them and are provided with MAS, a structured aftercare
regime that provides enhanced community support, counselling and case management with close supervisionin order to deter them from reoffending.
(e)Thailand
In Thailand, there is a parole system under which prisoners are released by the decision of the Parole
Board and subject to supervision by probation officers after release. Prisoners eligible for parole must be
convicted prisoners who have served at least one-third of their sentence and are first-time prisoners.
3. Community Service Orders (CSO)
Community Service Orders refer to activities in the community that are imposed on offenders – often
unpaid work or social contribution activities – and implemented either as an independent sanction by the
court or as a part of probationary conditions.
(a) Brunei
In Brunei, juvenile and adult probationers are subject to community service for a certain number of hours
ordered by the courts, and probation officers are responsible for arranging and managing it.
(b) Malaysia
In Malaysia, a Community Service Order (CSO) is an order of the court requiring juvenile delinquents, or
children in conflict with the law, to perform community service, or unpaid work for a specific number ofhours, and is a community-based sentencing option that permits the court to order the community service
work as a condition of probation. CSOs are supervised and handled by probation officers and Child Welfare
Committees.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, Community Service is a part of the rehabilitation and reintegration programme
provided for probationers, parolees and pardonees in the community and rendered by clients for the benefit
49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
of society. It includes tree planting, beautification drives, cleaning and greening of surroundings, maintenanceof public parks and places, garbage collection, blood donation and similar socio-civic activities.11(d) Singapore
In Singapore, the Community Service Order (CSO) was first implemented in 1996 as a probation condition
for juvenile offenders, and it has been expanded to include adult offenders, both as a condition of probation
and as a stand-alone sentencing option. The probation service has a network of more than 130 community
service agencies which have opened their doors on a goodwill basis to accept offenders and create opportunities
and meaningful experiences for those under the CSO.
(e) Thailand
In Thailand, in 2003, the Penal Code 1956 was amended, enabling judges to impose the Community
Service Order in lieu of fine, supervised by probation officers.
4. Electronic Monitoring
Electronic monitoring (E.M.) is also used as an alternative to imprisonment and is a cost-effective use oftechnology in Singapore and Thailand.
(a) Singapore
In Singapore, E.M. was introduced in 2003 as a condition of probation for selected offenders needing
intensive supervision and usually imposed for a period of 4 to 6 months by the courts. E.M. is used to ensurethat the offenders are home within curfew hours, to promote family bonding, “to refrain from alcohol
consumption, to not own a hand phone with a picture-taking or video capturing capability and to refrain fromvisiting certain areas”.12(b) Thailand
In Thailand, since 2013 the Department of Probation has implemented a pilot project using electronicmonitoring and established it officially by the Minister’s order in 2017. The management of E.M. is now oneof the tasks of Volunteer Probation Officers assigned by the Director General of Department of Probation.13
VPOs monitor parolees wearing E.M. devices and give them advice.14
B. Evidence-based Interventions and Support Responding to Each Individual’s Specific Needs
As noted during Workshop 2, identifying the criminogenic needs of each individual offender is essential
to ensure effective supervision and support for rehabilitation. In this regard, assessment of an individual’s
specific needs is important as an initial step. One example is an activity that is underway in the Philippines
to implement a new measure which ensures evidence-based individual interventions. As part of this, theParole and Probation Administration of the Philippines (PPA) has also developed a new assessment tool,
which helps identify the criminogenic needs of offenders. From February to March 2021, UNAFEI and the
UNODC provided training seminars for practitioners at the probation service in the Philippines in collaboration
with Dr. Raymund Narag of Southern Illinois University and Dr. Clarke Jones of Australian National
University, and more training seminars will be conducted in the future. The trainees acquire new knowledge
for assessing offenders using the R-N-R Model. The “big 8” factors are addressed by Dr. Narag and Dr. Jones
as key factors in developing new tools, and those are:
- Criminal history;- Pro-criminal companions;- Pro-criminal attitudes and cognitions;- Anti-social personality pattern;11

  <https://probation.gov.ph/correction-rehabilitation/>.
  Bernadette Alexander, “Probation as a Community-based Rehabilitation Programme (Singapore)”, Resource Material Series
No. 96, 63, 66 (UNAFEI, 2015), available at <https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/ RS_No96/No96_VE _Alexander_3.
pdf>.
13
   Presentation by Vittawan Sunthornkajit, the Director General of the Department of Probation, the Ministry of Justiceof Thailand, at the World Congress on Community Volunteers for Supporting Offender Reintegration, held as an ancillary
meeting of the Kyoto Congress on 7 March 2021.
14
  <http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001348150.pdf>.
1250

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS- Education/employment status;- Family/marital status;- Substance abuse; and- Mental health.
For each of these categories, the PPA is developing a set of questions to ask clients in intake interviews.
The responses will be scored according to risk derived from statistics and will be used to determine themodule and intensity of interventions.
C. Continuity of Care and Support
Continuity of care and support among public-sector organizations, such as prisons, probation (parole)
offices and other governmental agencies in the community, as well as public-private partnerships, are crucial
for offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration in order to help offenders secure employment, housing andaccess to legal, social and medical services, as well as educational opportunities and vocational training. Thisis an example of a practice taking place in the ASEAN region which corresponds to the key issue ofcontinuity of care and support.
According to the country report at the seminar on promoting community-based treatment in the ASEAN
region held in 2015, Singapore introduced its CARE Network scheme, which brings together key communityand government agencies to promote seamless in-care to aftercare support to ex-offenders. Eight member
agencies are engaged in this network:- Ministry of Home Affairs;- Ministry of Social and Family Development;- Singapore Prison Service;- Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises, which is now called Yellow Ribbon Singapore;- National Council of Social Service;- Industrial & Services Co-Operative Society Ltd.;- Singapore After-Care Association;- Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association.
And now the Yellow Ribbon Fund is also involved in the network.15 These effective linkages with thecommunity help provide a holistic and sustainable support network for ex-offenders and their families.
D. Multi-Stakeholder Approach
The multi-stakeholder approach is also addressed as a key element for building rehabilitative environments.
The multi-stakeholder approach, which involves the public sector at both the national and local levels, theprivate sector, faith-based organizations, academia, volunteers and community members, is encouraged to be
applied to ensure needed support for social reintegration of offenders.
The following are just a few of the stakeholders that were clearly identified in the report of training
seminars previously mentioned.
1. Volunteers
Volunteers play an important and effective role especially in community-based treatment in terms of
involvement of community and to provide necessary support. The Japanese system of volunteer probation
officers, or hogoshi in Japanese, is known as an effective approach which contributes to the rehabilitation of
offenders and reducing reoffending. Volunteer probation officer schemes have been adopted and implemented
in a number of ASEAN countries, such as Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand and Myanmar.
(a) Malaysia
In Malaysia, volunteers are involved in the welfare of children in conflict with the law as members ofChild Welfare Committee originally founded based on the guidance which Juvenile Welfare Committee
provided in 1976, and the present framework is provisioned in the Child Act of 2001.Their tasks are to assist
probation officers in supervising juveniles as well as providing support for child offenders and their families.
15

  <https://www.yellowribbon.gov.sg/>.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
The committee members are appointed by the Minister of Women, Family and Community Development.
(b) Singapore
In Singapore, the community Volunteer Probation Service was introduced in 1971 to promote volunteer
participation and community awareness in the rehabilitation of offenders placed on probation. It was renamed
the Volunteer Probation Officer (VPO) Scheme in 2012 to strengthen its representation as a volunteering
scheme.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, the Volunteer Probation Aid programme was introduced in 1977 to highlight andmaximize community involvement and encourage participation of trained VPAs to assist probation andparole officers nationwide in effectively supervising clients. It was renamed the Volunteer Probation Assistantprogramme in 2015 with the amendment of the probation law. VPAs are involved in rehabilitation programmes
implemented by the PPA including the Restorative Justice programme and the Therapeutic Community
programme.
(d) Thailand
In Thailand, the Volunteer Probation Officer (VPO) Scheme was introduced in 1985 under the principlethat the community should be empowered to establish a system and mechanism for protecting their own
community from crime and reoffending along with the criminal justice system. Recently, VPOs are tasked to
conduct the E.M. programme as previously mentioned.
(e) Myanmar
In Myanmar, volunteers are involved in the juvenile probation system, which started in 1993 under theChild Law. According to the law, the Director General of the Social Welfare Department assigns the
responsibilities traditionally granted to probation officers to an employee of the Social Welfare Department
or to a suitable citizen who is not a governmental employee. Those probation officers are responsible forsupervision and management of children in conflict with the law by the order of the juvenile court, giving
advice and counselling to the child’s family and community members.
2. Halfway Houses for Offenders
The term “halfway house for offenders” generally refers to a residential facility, or a shelter for offenders
who have no adequate place to live after their release from a correctional institute, that provides support
such as accommodation and guidance. Halfway houses are run by governmental and private agencies.
Halfway houses are being implemented in several countries in the ASEAN region, such as Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
(a) Indonesia
In Indonesia, there were six halfway houses nationwide as of January 2015, and they were set up as
correctional facilities with minimum security where offenders undergo their remaining sentence. They
accommodate parolees as well as probationers and provide them with necessary training and vocational
guidance to help them adjust to their environment.
(b) Malaysia
In Malaysia, there were fourteen halfway houses nationwide as of July 2015, and they were establishedby the Malaysia Prison Department, and the Parole and State Community Service of the Department is incharge of managing them. They work in collaboration with non-governmental organizations, entrepreneurs,
employers and others to provide residents not only a temporary accommodation but also assistance to get a
job and to find appropriate placement.
(c) The Philippines
The first halfway house in the Philippines, the Halfway House and Livelihood Training Center (HHLTC),
was established in 2019 and serves not just as a temporary home for the probationers and parolees but also
as a venue for various trainings, seminars and recreational activities. The building is composed of a halfway
house and a livelihood training centre, and is managed by the personnel of the PPA.

52

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS(d) Singapore
In Singapore, the Halfway House (HWH) Scheme was started in 1995. It allows selected offenders without
strong family support to spend the last stage of detention in a halfway house. Currently, there are eight
independent faith-based halfway houses participating in the HWH Scheme, and the programme comprises
counselling, work therapy and moral/religious education. Under the scheme, HWHs are mandated to operate
under a structured and more consistent programme to better meet offenders’ reintegration needs. In 2019,the first government-run HWH was established to strengthen aftercare support for selected higher-risk exoffenders placed on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme in the domains of employment and accommodation. It
operates as a 24-hour residential facility with a capacity of 576 for male and female residents.16(e) Thailand
In Thailand, there were eight officially authorized halfway houses nationwide as of February 2015. The
roles of halfway houses are: firstly, to provide homes to those who do not have appropriate places to live orneed help with reintegration into their family or community; secondly, to support mental recovery or the
rehabilitation process; lastly, to support vocational training and education for better career opportunities of
the residents.
3. Other Community Entities
In addition to agencies that specialize in the treatment of offenders, existing social resources are also
helpful in the rehabilitation of offenders. Some of the practices found in the ASEAN region are as follows.
(a) Lao PDR
In Lao PDR, the Village Group Policing system was established nationwide in 2003 under the supervisionof the District Police Headquarters. The Village Group Policing system involves the community in the
supervision of offenders to maintain order and security within the community. Restorative justice measuresthrough Village Mediation Units have also been in place to deal with petty and non-violent crimes committed
by juveniles and adult offenders as alternatives to incarceration. As a result, crime has been reduced due tothe local communities’ cooperation and mediation with the police.
(b) Viet Nam
In Viet Nam, the criminal law enforcement agency (district police) and the Commune People’s Committee(CPC), or local-level administrative bodies, are responsible for conducting the supervision of those on probationand non-custodial sentences, and the CPC assigns offices, organizations, unions or individuals to directlysupervise and educate them. While there is no specific organization that operates as a formal probation officeand there are no formal probation officers, the involvement of the local government provides a variety ofnecessary support services.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, the Barangay (Village) Justice System is an alternative to a court disposition, and the
Restorative Justice Programme is conducted by the PPA as a part of a rehabilitation programme in which
the PPA invites victims and community members to participate in the process of reintegration of offenders
into the community.
4. Family Members
According to the reports of the seminars, many countries raised family members as a key stakeholder.
This point was also addressed in the Background Paper of Workshop 2.17 Family is generally recognized as
an important factor for successful reintegration, because they provide offenders with social, financial andmental support. Therefore, involving family members, coordinating family relationships, educating family
members and other family-related approaches can also be effective.

16

  Matthew Wee Yik Keong, “Preventing Reoffending in Singapore”, Resource Material Series No. 111, 57-65 (UNAFEI, 2020),
available at <https://unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No111/No111_09_VE_Keong.pdf>.
17
   Background Paper, Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions, A/CONF.234/9 (3February 2020).

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

IV. CONCLUSIONAs described above, many countries in the ASEAN region have made efforts to provide offenders with
opportunities to obtain proper assistance and guidance to achieve successful rehabilitation and reintegration,and to prevent them from reoffending. In particular, the use of probation has been adopted in a number ofcountries, and its use in juvenile justice has been more promoted compared to that of adults. However, there
are still countries where rehabilitative environments have not been fully established, and even in countries
where community-based corrections have been established, there are many countries that face challenges in
improving the capacity of relevant personnel and in developing a holistic system to support the rehabilitationof offenders. Although ASEAN as a whole is moving toward the development of rehabilitative environments,
there is still room for further development in the future.
In order to create these environments which contribute to the prevention of reoffending, “technicalassistance” is an essential element. The importance of technical assistance was also addressed at Workshop
2 of the Kyoto Congress. A panellist from Croatia presented on the process of implementing probation as a
new system in her country, and she noted that technical assistance from other countries and foreignorganizations was very helpful as they established the new system.
UNAFEI is eager to continue to help ASEAN countries build rehabilitative environments, and the UN
model strategies on reducing reoffending, which UNAFEI will help create as an outcome of Workshop 2, will
provide practical guidance for ASEAN countries.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development seeks to establish a global society that “leave[s] no one
behind”. By empowering each individual in our societies – including offenders in correctional facilities andthose reintegrating themselves into society – we will also be enhancing our communities and our countries.
That means no individual, no group, no community and no country will be left behind. Technical assistanceis a way to walk together hand in hand, to develop and sustain a peaceful and inclusive society.

54THE KYOTO CRIME CONGRESS AND THE “DECADE OF ACTION”:
FRAMING THE GLOBAL NARRATIVE ON REDUCING REOFFENDING
Thomas L. Schmid*

I. INTRODUCTION
The principal aim of this paper is to emphasize that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) havegiven the field of crime prevention and criminal justice an unprecedented global platform to advocate forchange in the way we – as a global community – view, interact with and support offenders on their paths todesistance from crime. No global platform has been so broad as to link the issues of poverty, education, healthcare, the environment and others with criminal justice. It has taken the field of crime prevention and criminal
justice six years, since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, to focus in on how it can contribute to theachievement of this ambitious agenda from the perspective of crime prevention. With only nine years left toachieve the 2030 Agenda, now is the time for action.
“Reducing reoffending” was one of the many important topics that drew attention at the Kyoto Congress,1
and it was the theme of one of the official workshops. In addition to introducing theories and effective
practices for reducing reoffending, the workshop recognized the links between crime prevention andsustainable development. Importantly, the workshop laid the groundwork for the development of model
strategies on reducing reoffending – new United Nations standards and norms that will, once adopted,
provide practical guidance on reducing reoffending to the criminal justice systems of UN Member States.
However, the new model strategies will not reduce reoffending on their own. A global narrative2 will benecessary to promote the model strategies, to promote understanding of their necessity and to persuade
governments to implement them and the public to embrace them. This narrative on reducing reoffending is
inextricably linked to sustainable development, and criminal justice policymakers and practitioners would bewell advised to analyse these links and implement policies and practices that are evidence based anddevelopment led.

II. AN OVERVIEW OF THE KYOTO CRIME CONGRESS AND WORKSHOP TWO ON
REDUCING REOFFENDING
The quinquennial United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice draws thousandsof participants from around the globe – including official governmental delegations, criminal justicepractitioners, academics and civil society interest groups – for the purpose of setting the global agenda forcriminal justice policy for the next five years. The political segment of the congress is counterbalanced by
the practitioner-oriented segments that take place in the form of four official workshops and scores ofancillary meetings.
For the Kyoto Congress, the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), as an institute of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal＊
Linguistic Adviser, UNAFEI. Tom has been a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois, United States of America, since2004 and has served as UNAFEI’s Linguistic Adviser since 2012.
1
  The Kyoto Congress is used herein as an abbreviated reference to the 14th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice, which was held in Kyoto, Japan, from 7 to 12 March 2021. The Kyoto Congress had originally beenscheduled for April 2020 but was postponed due to the global Covid-19 pandemic.
2
  A “narrative” is a story, a thesis or a series of logically connected concepts arranged in a particular order to tell a story
in a particular way. Viewed another way, a narrative is a communications strategy – or perhaps even “talking points”. If the
field of crime prevention and criminal justice can agree to a common narrative on reducing reoffending, this narrative can beused to explain, contextualize, advocate and persuade.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
Justice Programme Network, was charged by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) totake the lead in the organization and implementation of Workshop 2 (the “Workshop”). The theme of theWorkshop was “Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions”. After several years of
preparatory meetings, including consultations with experts and in close collaboration with the UNODC, aclear consensus on an effective approach to reducing reoffending emerged:
Reducing reoffending is critical to building inclusive, sustainable societies as envisioned in the 2030
Agenda [for Sustainable Development]. To reduce reoffending effectively, criminal justice systems
must prioritize offender rehabilitation and social reintegration by creating rehabilitative prison
environments, adopting and implementing community-based approaches that contribute to reducing
reoffending and taking a multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach.3
Following this three-pronged thesis, the Workshop was structured in three panels: (i) creating rehabilitative
prison environments; (ii) community-based approaches; and (iii) adopting a multi-stakeholder approach torehabilitation and reintegration. The Workshop addressed a litany of important topics including: proportionality
in criminal sentencing, individualized treatment and evidence-based treatment models and methods (theRisk-Need-Responsivity Model, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, the Good Lives Model, and Desistance
Theory), continuity of care throughout contact with the justice system, the principle of “normality”, alternatives
to imprisonment and the effectiveness of community-based treatment, the dangers of mass supervision andnet widening, and numerous practical examples of how to leverage governmental and private-sector resourcesand expertise. To those who attended in person and online, the Workshop was a resounding success, and thecontent shared and discussed during the Workshop laid the groundwork for the preparation of model
strategies on reducing reoffending – new United Nations standards and norms.4
The purpose, however, of this paper is not to revel in the Workshop’s success. History cautions us that
decades – if not centuries – old wisdom fades into obscurity. Even the history of the crime congresses
demonstrates that what our experts know (or knew) does not necessarily translate into policy or practice.
To compound the problem, contemporary issues such as socio-political upheaval, public health and financial
crises, and even concerns over commitments to the rule of law threaten the prospect that good ideas andpractices that were distilled from the Workshop will actually be put into practice.
Accordingly, this paper will examine the need for a global narrative on reducing reoffending, explain why
reducing reoffending is an important issue for achieving sustainable development, and offer seven principles
that might form the basis of a global, development-led narrative on reducing reoffending. The purpose of thisglobal narrative is to seek a way for the crime prevention and criminal justice field to speak with one voice,with the aim of permanently establishing the importance of reducing reoffending in the hearts and minds of
diplomats, politicians, practitioners and the general public. First, however, this paper will lay the groundworkfor that narrative by exploring the interconnection between crime prevention and sustainable development
and argue that a global narrative is necessary to maintain momentum over time and to prevent goodtheories and practices from fading into obscurity.

III. MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY VIEWS ON CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT –A SELECTIVE HISTORY
What is the purpose of criminal punishment? As students of law, criminology, philosophy and many otherdisciplines can attest, this seemingly simple question has no simple answer. Politicians, scholars and legal
practitioners have pondered this question for millennia. Based on accumulated wisdom, there are currently
five generally accepted principles that lay the groundwork for any attempt to answer the question. These
five purposes for criminal punishment are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation.5
3  Background Paper, Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions, A/CONF.234/9 (3 Feb.
2020), para. 5; see also Report of Committee II: workshop 2, Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions,
A/CONF.234/L.4, (9 Mar. 2021), para. 14.
4
  See generally Compendium of United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice, (New York:UNODC, 2016), available online at <https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/English_book.pdf>.
5
  UNODC, E4J University Module Series: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Module 7: Alternatives to Imprisonment,
Topic 2. Justifying punishment in the community, www.unodc.org (March 2019), available online at <https://www.unodc.org/

56

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
This paper – and Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress – emphasizes the paramount importance of rehabilitation
as the guiding principle for criminal punishment and as a practical and evidence-based approach to crime
prevention.
From the Anglo-American perspective, the idea that crime prevention and offender rehabilitation are theprincipal aims of criminal punishment can be traced back to the Late Modern Period (1750–1945) andeighteenth-century English jurist Sir William Blackstone. While it would be a stretch to attribute the UN
Crime Congress’s use of the term “crime prevention” directly to Blackstone, the UN Crime Congress (onCrime Prevention and Criminal Justice) undoubtedly owes a debt of gratitude to the views on punishmentthat were advanced by Blackstone and his contemporaries over 250 years ago.6
The sections below will consider the emergence of crime prevention as the principal theoretical purposeof criminal punishment in Anglo-American jurisprudence and look back at some of the forward-looking
perspectives that arose out of the early UN Crime Congresses. It will also examine how this chain of
intellectual progress was broken, setting the United States on the path toward mass incarceration. A brieflook at how mass incarceration came about – at the expense of the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration– may help other jurisdictions avoid the same missteps.
A. New Ideas on Crime Prevention and Criminal Punishment in Late Modern England: “A Collective
Distaste for Imprisonment”7
In the mid-1700s, crime prevention formed the basis of the Anglo-American theory on criminal punishment.
In 1769, jurist William Blackstone, close in time to like-minded commentators in continental Europe, publishedhis fourth and final volume of Commentaries on the Laws of England, addressing “public wrongs”. Blackstone
firmly and convincingly describes crime prevention as the purpose of punishment. He explains:
As to the end, or final cause of human punishments. This is not by way of atonement or expiation forthe crime committed; for that must be left to the just determination of the supreme being: but as aprecaution against future offenses of the same kind. This is effected three ways: either by theamendment of the offender himself; for which purpose all corporal punishments, fines, and temporary
exile or imprisonment are inflicted; or, by deterring others by the dread of his example from offending
in the like way, “ut poena (as Tully expresses it) ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat [punishment ofa few puts all in dread];” which gives rise to all ignominious punishments, and to such executions ofjustice as are open and public: or, lastly, by depriving the party injuring of the power to do futuremischief; which is effected by either putting him to death, or condemning him to perpetual confinement,
slavery, or exile. The same one end, of preventing future crimes, is endeavored to be answered byeach of these three species of punishment. The public gains equal security, whether the offenderhimself be amended by [wholesome] correction; or whether he be disabled from doing any farther
harm; and if the penalty fails of both these effects, as it may do, still the terror of his example remains
as a warning to other citizens. The method however of inflicting punishment ought always to be
proportioned to the particular purpose it is meant to serve, and by no means to exceed it; therefore
the pains of death, and perpetual disability by exile, slavery, or imprisonment, ought never to beinflicted, but when the offender appears incorrigible: which may be collected either from a repetitionof minuter offences; or from the perpetration of some one crime of deep malignity, which of itself
demonstrates a disposition without hope or probability of amendment; and in such cases it would be
cruelty to the public, to defer the punishment of such a criminal, till he had an opportunity of repeating

e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-7/key-issues/2--justifying-punishment-in-the-community.html>.
6
   While Jeremy Bentham was a fierce critic of Blackstone’s commentaries, Bentham’s criticism was based on othergrounds; Bentham and Blackstone agreed on the purpose of criminal punishment. Tony Draper, “An introduction to Jeremy
Bentham’s Theory of Punishment”, Journal of Bentham Studies, vol. 5 (2002). “During the latter 1770s and 1780s Bentham’s
ideas were in accord with the general consensus in England regarding the purpose and forms of punishment as identified in
the works of men such as William Blackstone and William Eden. The immediate end of punishment was, they all agreed, todeter future crime; and, on a wider scale, they concurred that punishment ought prominently to protect the liberties of lawabiding citizens. In practical terms this agreement amongst many writers of the early to mid-1770s displayed itself in their
showing a collective distaste for imprisonment as a punishment. This distaste was shared by Bentham.” Ibid. at 7.
7
  Draper, at 7; supra, note 6.

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
perhaps the worst of [villainies].8
From a twenty-first century perspective, this excerpt – despite its references to now outdated anddisfavoured punishments like exile, slavery and death9 – describes the purpose of criminal punishment in a
way that modern-day academics, policymakers and practitioners can relate to. First, Blackstone emphasizes
the importance of preventing future offences (i.e. crime prevention) over “atonement and expiation”. Certainly,that is not to say that an offender’s remorse is irrelevant, as will be seen in a moment. It does, however,
permit the concept of crime prevention to rise above the principle of retribution. Second, “the amendment of
the offender” (i.e. rehabilitation and reintegration) is listed as the first and primary means of preventing
future crime (i.e. reducing reoffending) and the primary purpose of criminal punishment. Thus, in theeighteenth century, Blackstone prioritized the principles of criminal punishment in the following order: first,
rehabilitation; second, deterrence; and, third, incapacitation.
Blackstone also addresses the importance of proportionality in criminal sentencing – a principle thatremains relevant and important today. By stating that “punishment ought always to be proportioned to theparticular purpose it is meant to serve, and by no means exceed it”, Blackstone recognized that the principal
danger was not that criminal sentences would be too light but that they would be too severe. In a subsequentpassage, he explains that disproportionate penalties are less effective at rehabilitating offenders and preventing
crime.10 Thus, Blackstone’s views on crime prevention and proportionality were strikingly different fromthose of, for example, Immanuel Kant – a retributivist.11
Unsurprisingly, while Blackstone’s views represented the state of legal theory, his views were
unrepresentative of the actual conditions in English prisons at the time. The death penalty and transportationof convicts to the colonies were commonplace; prisons were overcrowded, makeshift (even on ships docked
in London) and filled with non-violent debtors.12 However, Blackstone’s Commentaries, along with the
influential works of his like-minded contemporaries, demonstrate that the theory of offender rehabilitation asa means of crime prevention has been known to criminal justice practitioners and legal experts for morethan 250 years.
Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the idea of crime prevention and prison reform
took on an international dimension. The First International Prison Congress was held in 1846,13 and the FirstInternational Congress on the Prevention and Repression of Crime was held in London in 1872, which
created the International Prison Commission that became the International Penal and PenitentiaryCommission (IPPC).14 On 1 December 1950, the functions of the IPPC and “the field of the prevention of crime
and treatment of offenders” were incorporated into the UN.15

8

  William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV of Public Wrongs, Edited by Wilfrid Prest. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2016), 7-8 (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted).
9
  While the death penalty is still a legal sanction in a small number of jurisdictions, its use is declining. As such, the author
views the death penalty as “disfavoured” both in jurisdictions that have rejected it and jurisdictions that still sanction its use.
Nevertheless, Blackstone clearly cautions against use of such extreme penalties in all but the most extreme cases.
10   Blackstone at 10. “Lastly, as a conclusion to the whole, we may observe that punishments of unreasonable severity,especially when indiscriminately inflicted, have less effect in preventing crimes, and amending the manners of a people, thansuch as are more merciful in general, yet properly intermixed with due distinctions of severity. It is the sentiment of an
ingenious writer, who seems to have well studied the springs of human action, that crimes are more effectually prevented by
the certainty, than by the severity, of punishment.” Ibid. at 10-11 (emphasis in original).
11
  Kant’s view of criminal punishment was based on the Law of Retribution (ius talionis). In his view, all murderers “mustdie” and “solitary and painful confinement” for the purpose of “humiliation” could render perfect legal justice. Immanuel Kant,
Metaphysical Elements of Justice, tr. John Ladd, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1999), 138-39. If Kant’s view isphilosophically sound, it is not in line with the United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice,such as the Tokyo Rules (1990), the Bangkok Rules (2010) and the Nelson Mandela Rules (2015).
12
  Early prisons and imprisonment, www.parliament.uk (accessed 30 Aug. 2021).
13
  Report of the Fourth Crime Congress, at para. 52.
14
  International Penal and Penitentiary Commission (IPPC), www.unodc.org (accessed 30 Aug. 2021).
15
  Transfer of functions of the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission, General Assembly resolution 415(v), para. 6 (1Dec. 1950).

58

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
B. Crime Prevention in the Contemporary Era
One of the early achievements of the United Nations in crime prevention was the adoption of theStandard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Offenders at the First United Nations Congress on thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (SMR) in 1955, and later by the Economic and Social
Council in 1957. Having carried forward the wisdom that accumulated over previous centuries, the SMR seek
to ensure that all correctional facilities offer rehabilitative environments, free of cruel, inhuman or degrading
punishment and urge treatment “with a view to social rehabilitation”.16
Moving forward to 1970, the Fourth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders (the 1970 Kyoto Congress17) explored the links between crime prevention andeconomic and social development, as will be addressed further in the next section. Additionally, a number oftheories and practices that are still very relevant today were also addressed. These include, among others,
the harm caused by imprisonment,18 the use of alternatives to imprisonment and “community-based
treatment”,19 a call for diversion and restorative justice,20 concerns over net widening,21 the importance of
public participation in crime prevention,22 public awareness,23 normalizing prison environments in line with
community services24 and exposing judges to the realities of prisons.25 (All of these topics were addressed 51
years later during Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress.)
However, only four years after the 1970 Kyoto Congress, the landscape of crime prevention in the UnitedStates experienced a tectonic shift. In 1974, the infamous and discredited “nothing works” doctrine of theMartinson Report gave politicians in the United States the arguments they needed – and perhaps wanted– to fan the flames of penal populism and the tough on crime approach.  From 1972 to 1997, the incarceration
rate in the United States skyrocketed from 98 to 445 per 100,000 population.26 While the causes were no
doubt complex and included demographic changes, tougher sentencing practices, aggressive prison
construction and the War on Drugs, it was observed that the increase in prison populations was being driven
by policy, not crime.27
C. Why Target Reoffending?
It took decades for American politicians and the general public to recognize the failure of mass
incarceration, and the damage will continue long into the future. Despite improvements in policy andoutcomes, the United States still incarcerates more people than any other country in the world.28 As will be
16  Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Offenders, Economic and Social Council resolution 663 C (XXIC), paras. 31,
67(b) (31 Jul. 1957).
17
   Fifty-one years apart, the 4th and the 14th Crime Congresses were both held at the Kyoto International ConferenceCenter in Kyoto, Japan, in 1970 and 2021, respectively. To avoid confusion, the 4th Crime Congress is referred to herein as
the “1970 Kyoto Congress”.
18
  Report of the Fourth Crime Congress, at paras. 75 and 76.
19
  Ibid. at paras. 60, 75, 79.
20
  Ibid. at para. 76.
21
  Ibid. at para. 74. “The readiness of many societies to seek refuge in penal legislation before considering other legal and,perhaps, more practical social outlets and administrative solutions could increase the crimes reported. That increase mightthen appear to be a result of development but, in reality, it would be an unwarranted extension of law over human conduct
not previously considered criminal. A progressive build-up of unnecessary legislation could profoundly change the very
meaning of crime in any society and make the administration of justice cumbersome, if not, indeed, oppressive.”22
  Ibid. at para. 111. “It was [the individual citizen], in the last resort, who must provide community support on which allcorrectional processes ultimately depend. It was the individual who must accept the ex-offender as neighbour and co-worker
upon his return to the community.” Ibid. at 125.
23
  Ibid. at para. 132. “It was the view of the Congress that it was the duty of government to help to form and lead public
opinion in relation to social defence and that such leadership required the provision to the public of accurate information
about the criminal justice system and its work on which the public could base its views.”
24
   Ibid. at para. 168. “[E]fforts should be made towards developing the closest possible correspondence between living
conditions within the correctional institutions and those of persons living in freedom in the region in which the institution
was located.”25
  Ibid. at para. 175.
26
  Todd R. Clear and George F. Cole, American Corrections, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2000), 422.
27
  Ibid. at 423-27.
28
   World Prison Brief: Highest to Lowest – Prison Population Total, www.prisonstudies.org (accessed 30 Aug. 2021).
According to 2018 data, the United States had nearly 2.1 million people in prison with 738,000 in local jails, 179,200 in federal

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
discussed in more detail below, reoffending is obviously a significant problem in the United States.
In fact, reoffending is a problem that faces many countries, including those with much smaller prison
populations. The world over, a significant percentage of offenders return to crime upon release form prison.
For example, Japan’s prison population ranks 39th with 48,429 people in prison at the end of 2019 – anestimated 38 per 100,000 population.29 In 2007, Japan’s White Paper on Crime “revealed that roughly 60% of
all crimes were committed by repeat offenders, who accounted for approximately 30% of convicted offenders.”30
In 2011, criminologist Joan Petersilia observed that, in the United States, “two-thirds of released prisoners
are rearrested for at least one serious new crime, and more than half are re-incarcerated within three yearsof release” – the two-thirds rearrest rate being a constant over the 40-year history of the study.31 These
rearrest numbers in the United States were confirmed yet again in 2018, when it was reported that “[f]ive
out of 6 (83%) state prisoners released in 2005 across 30 states were rearrested at least once during the 9
years following their release,” with an estimated 68 per cent arrested within three years of release.32 Overthe 9 year period of the 2018 study, each person released from prison was rearrested five times on average(approximately 400,000 released offenders were arrested nearly 2 million times).33
These statistics demonstrate that repeat offenders cause a disproportionate amount of crime. As
discouraging as that might be, it suggests that investing resources into helping repeat offenders desist from
crime can lead to a significant reduction in crime rates and an increase in public safety. Petersilia suggested
that implementing effective rehabilitation programmes could reduce reoffending by 15 to 20 per cent, inwhich case as many as 100,000 offenders (based on 2011 numbers in the US) could be expected to desist from
crime.34
As it turns out, the American public seems to support the approach advocated by Petersilia. Polling from2012 suggests that the American public overwhelmingly believes that there are too many people in prisonand supports prioritizing the prevention of reoffending over the amount of time served by the offender.35 This
attitude is in stark contrast to the penal populism in the United States in the 1970s and ‘80s, through which
the “tough on crime” approach garnered support from politicians and the general public. It may be thatpublic opinion has shifted as a result of the failure of retributive criminal justice policies in the United Statesthat led to mass incarceration and had devastating and disproportionate impacts on racial minorities andother disadvantaged groups.
The UN Crime Congress convenes every five years, and there are traditionally four workshops at eachcongress. Thus, the selection of “reducing reoffending” as a topic demonstrates the perceived importance of
this issue to the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. In 2014, the United Nations General Assembly,
in a resolution on the administration of justice, “recall[ed] that the social rehabilitation and reintegration of
persons deprived of their liberty shall be among the essential aims of the criminal justice system, ensuring,as far as possible, that offenders are able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life upon their return tosociety, . . .”36 The clear implication of the failure to successfully rehabilitate and reintegrate persons deprivedof liberty is that they will reoffend and return to lives of crime. As will be explored in the next section, crime
prevention is inextricably linked with sustainable development and the pursuit of peace, justice and security
for all.

prisons and nearly 1.2 million in state prisons.
29   Ibid. By comparison, Japan’s prison population was reported as 76,881 people in prison in 2008 at an estimated 60 per
100,000 population.
30
   Nozumu Suzuki, Koji Yoshimura & Marie Otomo, “The Current Situation of Drug Offences in Japan”, 4 (unpublishedmanuscript, 3 Aug. 2021), Microsoft Word File and hard copy on file with author.
31
  Joan Petersilia, “Beyond the Prison Bubble”, NIJ Journal, Issue No. 268, 29 (October 2011).
32
  Mariel Alper, Matthew R. Durose & Joshua Markman, 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year Follow-up Period(2005-2014), Special Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, 1 (May 2018).
33
  Ibid. at para. 7.
34
  Petersilia at 29.
35
  Public Opinion Strategies and the Mellon Group, Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in America, www.
pewtrusts.org (March 2012), 5.
36
  Human rights in the administration of justice, General Assembly resolution 69/172, recitals (1 Dec. 2014).

60

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS

IV. EXPLORING THE LINKS BETWEEN CRIME PREVENTION AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Even for readers with a great depth of understanding about the theoretical and practical issues surrounding
crime prevention, the idea of sustainable development may remain something of a mystery. Neither theconcept nor the term is new, but the 2015 adoption of the SDGs has made the term more commonplace.
While many have an intuitive understanding of the term, an accurate definition of sustainable development
is useful for its application to crime prevention and the creation of an effective global narrative. Thus, thissection provides a definition of sustainable development and explores its links with crime prevention bylooking at how these issues have been addressed by previous crime congresses and by considering theinclusion of Goal 16 in the SDGs.
A. Sustainable Development – Expanding Economic and Social Development to Include the Protectionof the Environment
Sustainable development evolved from the economic and social development envisioned by the UN
Charter.  Article 1 of the UN Charter encourages the Member States to engage in “international cooperation
in solving international problems of an economic, social, [and] cultural . . . character”, while Article 55 states
the United Nations shall, “[w]ith a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which arenecessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations, . . .  promote . . . economic and social progressand development”.37 The implementation of these principles was one of the first tasks of the United Nations,
as it dealt with the reconstruction of Europe and the displacement of Europeans after World War II.38
Referred to by one commentator as “the godfather of UN goals”, United States President John F. Kennedy,“urged the [UN] to designate the 1960s as the ‘development decade’”,39 giving rise to four development
decades that took the UN into the new millennium. These four development decades laid the groundworkfor the Millennium Development Goals in 2000 and the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. Thus,
development originated as a two-prong concept: economic and social.
The concept of sustainable development, although not the term, seems to have come to international
prominence in 1972 during the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm.
The conference declaration – a document similar in style to the declarations of the crime congresses –explains that economic and social development must be pursued in harmony with the environment. “To
defend and improve the human environment for present and future generations has become an imperative
goal for mankind – a goal to be pursued together with, and in harmony with, the established and fundamental
goals of peace and of worldwide economic and social development.”40 Thus, the Conference on the Human
Environment added the environment to the development equation.
As understood today, sustainable development refers to a three-dimensional operational framework of theUnited Nations that pursues economic, social and environmental development of its Member States,41
recognizing that these three prongs of development are inextricably linked. In this sense, the issues andareas are referred to as cross-cutting, meaning that the failure to succeed in any one area will inhibit successin other areas.42 Conversely, success in one area will amplify success in others. In a word, cross-cutting means“interdependent”. These complex issues are not only cross-cutting; they are multifaceted. Here, themultifaceted nature of these issues means that solutions must be multidisciplinary, requiring the combinationof multiple areas of expertise.43 And to ensure that this multifaceted approach includes all relevant parties
37

  Charter of the United Nations, Arts. 1 and 55 (1945) (emphasis added).
  Stephen Browne, Sustainable Development Goals and UN Goal-Setting, (London: Routledge, 2017), 2.
39
  Ibid.
40
  Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the Report of the United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, 3-5 (New York: United Nations, 1973).
41
  Browne, at 38.
42
  The definition of cross-cutting presented here is decidedly less pessimistic than that offered by Browne, who asserts thatthe term “cross-cutting” is merely a whitewashed term for needless “duplication” of “overlapping” goals and targets. Browne,
at 92. However, Browne’s criticism is likely aimed toward the difficulty in measuring quantitative outcomes, whereas thedefinition offered in this paper is more qualitative.
43
  See Successes and challenges in implementing comprehensive crime prevention and criminal justice policies and strategies
to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and to support sustainable development, A/CONF.222/6,
para. 40 (21 January 2015).
38

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
and constituencies within government and civil society, the multifaceted approach can and should include all
relevant stakeholders, embodying the multi-stakeholder approach.
B. The Relationship between Crime and Development – The 1970 Kyoto Congress
Attention to the relationship between crime and development emerged in the mid-1960s through thework of the Advisory Committee of Experts on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.44
Shortly thereafter – just two years before the Conference on the Human Environment – the 1970 Kyoto
Congress carefully examined the links between economic and social development and crime. The four
agenda items included: (1) social defence policies in relation to development planning; (2) Participation of the
public in the prevention and control of crime and delinquency; (3) The Standard Minimum Rules for theTreatment of Prisoners in light of recent developments in the correctional field; and (4) Organization ofresearch for policy development in social defence.45 The 1970 Kyoto Congress observed that rapid socioeconomic change was associated with increased crime,46 and urbanization, industrialization, population
growth, internal migration, social mobility and technological change were all considered “criminogenic”.47 In
response, the 1970 Kyoto Congress called for “social defence” strategies, created by governments with the
input and participation of the general public, that “provide for the total well-being of the community–
economic, social and cultural.”48 The 1970 Kyoto Congress adopted a declaration for the first time in thehistory of the Crime Congress. Two of the nine paragraphs read as follows:
Feeling an inescapable obligation to alert the world to the serious consequences for society of theinsufficient attention which is now being given to measures of crime prevention, which by definition
include the treatment of offenders,
1.
Calls upon all Governments to take effective steps to co-ordinate and intensify their crime
preventive efforts within the context of the economic and social development which each country
envisages for itself; . . .49
Thus, in a few lines, the 1970 Kyoto Declaration expressed the urgency of the need to enhance crimeprevention efforts and firmly established the principle that the issues of crime and development are
inextricably linked.
C. Sustainable Development in the New Millennium: Adding Peace and Justice to the Development
Paradigm
As the Fourth Development Decade was drawing to a close, the UN assessed its forthcoming role in thetwenty-first century, and the outcome of that assessment ultimately led to the adoption of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs).50 Among the eight goals, the MDGs recognized the need to address globalizationfrom the perspective of sustainable development by addressing poverty and hunger, education, genderequality, child mortality, maternal health, infectious diseases, environmental sustainability and global
partnership. The MDGs boast having cut global poverty in half – from 1.9 billion people in 1990 to 836 million
in 2015 – and increasing official development assistance by 66 per cent.51
As 2015 – the final year of the MDGs – approached, it became necessary to start discussing the post-2015
development agenda. These discussions ultimately led to the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development – the SDGs. Compared to the MDGs, the SDGs expanded to 17 goals and 169 targets, covering
44

  Social Defence Policies in Relation to Development Planning, A/CONF.43/1 (New York: United Nations, 1970).
  Report of the Fourth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, A/CONF.43/5,(New York: United Nations, 1971), para. 17.
46
  Ibid. at para. 65.
47
  Ibid at para. 67.
48
  Ibid. at para. 77. “In that way, planning would be an investment for the future–an investment which society could scarcely
afford to neglect.”49
   Declaration of the Fourth United Nations Congress on the prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in theReport of the Fourth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, A/CONF.43/5, (NewYork: United Nations, 1971), p. iii.
50
  Browne, at 84.
51
  The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, (New York: United Nations, 2015), 4 and 7.
45

62

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
a broader array of development issues, such as clean water, economic growth, industry, consumption, climatechange and so on. The goals aim high, pledging that “no one will be left behind. . . . And we will endeavour
to reach the furthest behind first.”52
Of particular importance to the field of crime prevention was the addition of Goal 16 on “Peace, justiceand strong institutions”. Goal 16 seeks to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. For
the first time in the decades-long history of development, the critical role of justice – including crime
prevention and criminal justice – was recognized at the highest intergovernmental levels as being necessary
to the achievement of sustainable development. Consequently, in 2015, the field of crime prevention andcriminal justice and its 60-year history of Crime Congresses, was – explicitly or implicitly – invited tocontribute actively to the global discussion on sustainable development.
The lessons from the 1970 Kyoto Congress should have made this invitation to the global discussion onsustainable development easy for criminal justice practitioners to understand and accept. Yet the injectionof sustainable development into the crime prevention agenda seemed rather mysterious, particularly fromthe perspective of criminal justice practitioners. In preparing for the 2015 Doha Congress, the Secretariat’s
request to explore connections between crime prevention and sustainable development was viewed by someas too complex to take on, particularly if it would sacrifice the discussion of crime prevention practices. While
this decision may have been necessary under the circumstances, it suggests that many of the key lessons of
the 1970 Kyoto Congress had been lost or significantly degraded over time. Meanwhile, a working paper of
the Secretariat in preparation for the Doha Congress began unpacking Goal 16, focusing primarily on the ruleof law as the field’s point of entry into sustainable development. No doubt the rule of law is fundamentally
important to the realization of Goal 16; however, overemphasis of the rule of law as the only justice-related
topic relevant to Goal 16 would minimize the impact that the crime prevention and criminal justice field
could have on sustainable development. Fortunately, the paper also briefly mentioned “preventing recidivism”53
and touched on a broad but critical point – the empowerment of all people, particularly “those most excluded” 54
from society. This concept opened the door to a much broader array of contributions from the crime
prevention field to sustainable development – including, of course, reducing reoffending.
One might wonder which target under Goal 16 mentions “reducing reoffending”. In fact, neither“reoffending” nor “recidivism” appears in the SDGs; they do not even appear in the indicators used tomeasure the goals.55 But this is where the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, the Crime Congress
and the workshops come into play. The years of planning and the initial work on the Congress agenda helped
frame the issues to be addressed during the Congress and teased out the workshop themes. As the crime
prevention and criminal justice field looked to the new Sustainable Development Goal 16, it was quickly
recognized that achieving peace and justice envisioned a society without crime. As discussed in greater
detail above, reoffenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, and it was observed thatsignificant gains in public safety could be made by effective efforts to reduce reoffending.
While the SDGs have been criticized for their breadth and their difficulty to measure,56 they may also
grant knowledgeable policymakers and practitioners the latitude to determine how they can best contributeto one or more goals. Although the path leading to the identification of reducing reoffending as a critical area52

  Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, General Assembly resolution 70/1, (21 Oct. 2015),
para. 4.
53
  In preparation for the Doha Crime Congress, a working paper prepared by the Secretariat observed that “The [Guidelines
for the Prevention of Crime, Economic and Social Council resolution 2002/13, annex] outline several approaches to prevention,
including the promotion of well-being of people by taking social, economic, health and educational measures, by changing
conditions in neighbourhoods that influence offending, by reducing opportunities and increasing the risk of being apprehended,
and by preventing recidivism by assisting in the social reintegration of offenders.” Successes and challenges in implementing
comprehensive crime prevention and criminal justice policies and strategies to promote the rule of law at the national andinternational levels, and to support sustainable development, A/CONF.222/6, (21 January 2015), para. 25 (emphasis added)(hereinafter, the “Doha Working Paper”).
54  Doha Working Paper, at para. 14 (emphasis added).
55
   See generally Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, General
Assembly resolution/71/313, Annex (6 July 2017).
56
  Browne, at 92.

63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
to be addressed under Goal 16 may have been a winding road, Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress successfullyprioritized reducing reoffending as a fundamental component of achieving peace and justice, toward thebroader aim of achieving sustainable development. It is now the responsibility of the crime prevention andcriminal justice field to ensure that crime prevention remains inextricably linked with sustainable development
and to forge its own narrative toward the achievement of Goal 16. As will be explored in the next section,
good ideas and urgent issues of great importance often run out of steam and come and go in cycles. The fieldof crime prevention and criminal justice is responsible for creating and promoting its own narrative anddeveloping its priorities and targets for the post-2030 development agenda.

V. FRAMING THE GLOBAL NARRATIVE ON REDUCING REOFFENDING
In addition to underscoring the need for a global narrative on reducing reoffending, this paper endeavours
to outline that narrative by sharing seven principles that might guide us toward the achievement of Goal 16
and sustainable development in general. These seven principles are all tied to the structure of Workshop 2,
which offered a clear and concise three-point thesis: to reduce reoffending, UN Member States should, first,
ensure the existence of rehabilitative prison environments, second, enhance the use of non-custodial measures,
and, third, pursue a multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach to rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Expanding on this thesis, each of the seven principles presented here is a concept, or a common premise,
upon which the narrative on reducing reoffending can be built. These principles are not new; at most, they
are variations on old themes. Despite their longevity, we need to remind ourselves of the importance of theseprinciples. They have been styled as talking points to advocate the importance of reducing reoffending whenengaging legislators, policymakers, practitioners and the general public. Each talking point is followed by asupporting rationale.
Table 1: An Expanded Narrative on Reducing Reoffending: The Three Key Elements of Workshop 2
and Seven Supporting Principles (Talking Points)
FRAMING THE GLOBAL NARRATIVE ON REDUCING REOFFENDING
Creating rehabilitative prison environments
 Prisons inherently cause harm
 But prisons can be a “hook for change” for some
 Commitment to individually tailored treatment
II.
Community-based approaches that contribute to reducing reoffending	Community-based treatment is the “smarter option” that enhances public safety
 Net widening and mass supervision must be avoided
III.	Taking a multifaceted (and multi-stakeholder) approach to ensure continuous supportand services for rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders on paths toward desistance “Whole of society” approach to offender rehabilitation and reintegration
	The multi-stakeholder approach should be government led but community/volunteer
driven (“partnership by design”)

I.

A. The First Principle

Prisons inherently cause harm . . .
Prisons inherently cause harm to the people detained there. Although this critical point is frequently
overlooked or forgotten, it is by no means new. The harm caused by incarceration is so well-established that
it is as incontrovertible as the harms are self-evident. People in prison are punished and incapacitated bybeing intentionally removed from society in derogation of their individual liberty, which – in theory – is thesole form of punishment. People in prison are separated from family, employment and any pro-social
relationships they might have. Indeed, they are separated from the very communities to which they will
inevitably return.57
While imprisonment serves the retributive interests of society, the utilitarian perspective asks what this57

  Petersilia, at 26-31. “Almost everyone who goes to prison ultimately returns home – about 93 percent of all offenders. (Arelative handful die in jail; the rest have life sentences or are on death row.)” Ibid. at 27-8.

64

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
social isolation is likely to achieve. In jurisdictions around the world, prison environments are typically
overcrowded and under-resourced, they suffer from corruption, and they are breeding grounds for criminality,
radicalization and terrorism. If prisons fail to help offenders start their paths toward desistence but rather
inflict trauma, encourage criminality and cause irreparable stigmatization, then we will be releasing many
offenders into society in worse shape than when they went in. Thus, it is time to come to terms with the factthat prisons harm the people in custody, and we must continually reaffirm that imprisonment is a measureof last resort.
That harm is caused by imprisonment is not a naïve trope: the argument is not that prisons are unnecessaryor that public safety should be sacrificed. To the contrary, it is because prisons cause harm that criminal
justice systems bear an obligation58 to ensure that harm is ameliorated so that prisons can carry out theirprincipal function of preventing crime by promoting rehabilitation and preparing people in prison for social
reintegration upon release. Thus, public safety and crime prevention are perhaps the most salient arguments
for creating “rehabilitative prison environments”, as discussed during Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress.
Among other examples, efforts at reducing corruption in prisons in Argentina have enhanced safety inprisons. By creating an environment in which people can engage in constructive and genuine rehabilitationin prison, correctional systems can reduce reoffending and increase public safety.59
B. The Second Principle. . . But prison can be a “hook for change” for some
The second point is an important corollary to the first: that is, even though prisons inevitably cause harm,they can be a “hook for change” for some people. Perhaps the best way to understand the importance of
rehabilitation is to hear the personal stories of those who have successfully turned their lives around. This
point was demonstrated by the personal testimony of Workshop 2 panellist Ali Reunanen of the Swedish
peer support group known as Criminals Return Into Society, or KRIS. He introduced himself as an addict
and an offender and explained how his history of trauma and victimization led him to crime and addiction.
Ali says he was about to die when he entered prison, and prison was the only way he could get clean, recover
his health and turn his life around. He has since used his experience as a recovering addict and offender toprovide support to others as they pursue their own paths toward desistance. Ali’s story of recovery andredemption is clearly not the only one, and these stories need to be shared with the general public tohumanize people who have committed crimes, to demonstrate that rehabilitation works and to show thatpeople can change.
C. The Third Principle

Effective rehabilitation requires a commitment to individually tailoredtreatment oriented towards the offender’s return to the community
In all contexts – in institutions, in the community and at all stages of the criminal justice system – helping
people change is the “essential aim”60 of corrections. Prisons must be environments that empower change,and prison staff must not only be trained to motivate and facilitate such change, but they must also believethat such change is possible.  Practitioners are well aware of the key approaches to effective rehabilitation– the importance of classification and assessment, the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model, Cognitive Behavioural
Therapy, the Good Lives Model and Desistance Theory. If the fundamental purpose of imprisonment is crime
prevention, then, as Dr. Fergus McNeill argues, criminal justice systems should be judged by their ability toenable reintegration and promote desistance. This process begins with addressing each offender as anindividual and by placing each person in prison in an environment that is conducive to rehabilitation.
Successful social reintegration is the empowerment of “those most excluded” members of our society. In thissense, correctional models that prioritize the successful re-entry and reintegration of the offender can be
58
   UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10.3, 16 Dec. 1966, United Nations,
Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 (“ICCPR”).
59
  Petersilia at 29.
60
  ICCPR, Article 10.3. “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall betheir reformation and social rehabilitation.”

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
considered as “development-led”61 approaches due to the gains that would result across a broad mix ofdevelopment goals.
D. The Fourth Principle

Non-custodial measures are the “smarter option” and enhance public safety
Non-custodial measures enhance public safety and are, as crime prevention experts are pointing out, notmere “alternatives” to imprisonment: they are the “smarter” option.62 Our language too often unconsciously
suggests that we buy into the parochial idea that most offenders go to prison. How often have you heard
someone say that we need to enhance the use of non-custodial measures “where appropriate”? When we talkabout using non-custodial measures “where appropriate”, we are appeasing those who believe non-custodial
measures create a greater risk to public safety. In so doing, the fact that non-custodial measures increase
public safety is overlooked.
So, why does treating offenders in the community generally enhance public safety? First, in countries likethe United States, two-thirds of offenders already serve sentences in the community.63 Thus, communitybased approaches already reflect the status quo. Second, we know from the Risk Principle that intensive
treatment of low- to moderate-risk offenders will actually increase reoffending and reduce public safety, yet
prisons in the United States and around the world are occupied by too many non-violent offenders. Finally,
as we have known for decades, community-based treatment avoids the harm inherently caused byincarceration and enables people to rehabilitate themselves – with proper community supervision andsupport – in the environment in which they will continue to live after the end of their sentences. They cankeep their jobs, maintain family ties and explore support networks in their communities. These, and otherforms of social support, can sustain their rehabilitation beyond the terms of their sentences.
For 40 years, the phrase “alternatives to imprisonment”64   has done tremendous work in advocating
smarter sentencing practices, but it is time to flip the script. Since non-custodial measures are actually the
sanction of first resort, provide the best chance at rehabilitation and increase public safety, our terminology
should reflect their priority. It is time to start talking about imprisonment as a less desirable “alternative” tocommunity-based approaches and about the use of imprisonment “where appropriate”.
E. The Fifth Principle

Criminal justice systems must remain vigilant against net widening
and mass supervision

Despite the obvious benefits of community-based approaches, criminal justice systems must be wary of61

   Matti Joutsen, “Community-based Approaches that Support Desistance” (PowerPoint presentation, Workshop 2 of the
Kyoto Congress, Kyoto, Japan, 8 Mar. 2021).
62
  The author first heard the term “smarter option” used by Canadian correctional psychologist Dr. Frank Porporino during
the preparatory work for the Kyoto Congress. Indicative of a trend, Dr. Nicola Padfield of the United Kingdom used theterms “smarter sentencing” and “smarter punishment” in her presentation at UNAFEI’s Third Alumni Webinar in 2021.
63
  For example, data from the United States in 2018 show that 22.9 per cent (1,465,200) of the adult correctional population
was incarcerated in prisons, with an additional 11.5 per cent (739,400) in local jails. Laura M. Maruschak and Todd D. Minton,
Correctional Populations in the United States, 2017-2018, Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, 4, Table 4 (Aug.  2020), available
at <https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus1718.pdf>.
64   The phrase “alternatives to imprisonment” has been engrained in the vocabulary of the crime prevention and criminal
justice field for about 40 years – at least since the Sixth Crime Congress, held in Caracas in 1980. Resolution 8. Alternatives
to imprisonment, A/CONF.87/14/Rev.1, (1981), p. 11-12. Prior to that, the Second Crime Congress addressed “substitutes
for short-term imprisonment” in the context of “the increased use of suspended sentences and probation, fines, extramural labour and other measures not involving deprivation of liberty”. Report of the Second United Nations Congress on thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, A/CONF.17/20, (1961), para. 261. The Fourth Crime Congress observed
a 20-year trend (that is, from 1950 to 1970) “in many countries towards the use of sanctions aimed at reducing recourse
to imprisonment”, stating that the “advantages of allowing the offender to remain in employment and thus to be able tocontinue support of his family were clear”. Report of the Fourth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders, A/CONF.43/5, (1961), para. 75.

66

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
using such sanctions indiscriminately. Net widening occurs when non-custodial sentences are overused,leading to the phenomenon of mass supervision, also known as mass probation. Societies suffering from mass
supervision experience disproportionate increases in the number of people who are under correctional
control without sufficient grounds for criminal justice intervention (see note 21) or, if sufficient grounds exist,
without sufficient support for rehabilitation and reintegration.
The fundamental concern about net widening is that too many justice systems are finding that the
number of people under correctional supervision is increasing to an extent that cannot be attributed to crime
rates; worst of all, such increases in correctional supervision have not led to decreases in incarceration.65
While mass supervision is a relatively new term (a corollary to “mass incarceration”), the concept is certainly
not new. As mentioned above, the 1970 Kyoto Congress powerfully expressed concern over the inappropriate
use of criminal justice sanctions.66 While that statement focuses more on the criminalization of conduct inconnection with economic and social development, it expresses serious concern over the expansion of penal
sanctions. It recognizes that the justice system is not able to solve all problems and, likewise, other responses
may be more effective. It also cautions against the potential for criminal justice to become “oppressive” tothe people it is intended to protect.
To remain vigilant against net widening and mass supervision, criminal justice systems must commit toproviding continuous support to people rehabilitating in the community while actively pursuing the goals of
releasing them from correctional control and achieving desistance. All custodial and non-custodial sanctions,first, must be proportionate and individually tailored to the offender; second, counselling and direct support
must be prioritized over surveillance; third, depenalization and decriminalization should be actively pursued
for conduct that is no longer viewed as criminal or for conduct that criminal justice systems are ill-suited toaddress; and, fourth, a multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach to offender rehabilitation and reintegration
should be embraced, as will be discussed next in greater detail.
F. The Sixth Principle

A “Whole of society” approach to reducing reoffending(multifaceted, multi-stakeholder, development led)
Reducing reoffending needs to be generally accepted by governments, civil society and the general public
as requiring a “whole of society” approach. As Mr. Kazuto Ishida, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ofJapan, observed at the 1970 Kyoto Congress, “[t]he prevention of crime could not be left solely to the police,prosecutors, courts and correctional institutions, but required the full and coordinated co-operation of all
segments of society.”67 More than any other prong of the workshop thesis, the multifaceted, multi-stakeholder
approach embodies the social, economic, environmental – and human – elements of sustainable development.
We see that poverty, lack of education, lack of health and well-being, lack of employment and housing,inequality and exclusion are cross-cutting development issues that impact offending and reoffending. If the
Sustainable Development Goals are to be believed, then no single governmental agency has, or ever had, thecapacity or the resources to successfully tackle reoffending on its own.
G. The Seventh Principle

The multi-stakeholder approach should be government led but
community/volunteer driven (social defence and public participation)
The multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach should be government led68  but community and volunteer
driven. While we need to embrace the “whole of society” approach to rehabilitation and reintegration,
government plays a critical role in democratic societies in terms of prioritizing and responding to social
65

  Fergus McNeill and Kristel Beyens, Offender Supervision in Europe: COST Action IS1106–Final Report, 6 (March 2016),
available at <https://www.cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Final-Report-COST-Action-IS1106.pdf>.
66
  Supra, note 21.
67  Report of the Fourth Crime Congress, at para. 51.
68
  Ibid. at para. 113. “If such [public] participation as to be achieved, there must be active governmental effort to form suchgroups and continuously to support their endeavours.”

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
problems, allocating financial and other resources, communicating with the public, etc. Likewise, government
bears the responsibilities of accountability and transparency. Thus, the multi-stakeholder approach should begovernment led. But by its nature, the multi-stakeholder approach recognizes that government has its limits.
Workshop 2 drew on the experiences of a peer support group in Sweden, a re-entry support organization in
the US, volunteer probation officers in Japan, global advocacy groups and technical assistance providers todemonstrate the broad range of expertise, knowledge and skills that civil society can bring to the table. In
many instances, local volunteers are better able to leverage their local networks and knowledge to achieve
results more effectively and at lower cost than government officials.69 Community volunteers should beviewed as “an integral part of all programmes dealing with the prevention and treatment of crime anddelinquency” and should be “complementary and must not be seen as competitive”.70 Thus, policymakers andpractitioners should actively pursue multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approaches if we expect to have any
success at reducing reoffending. To coin a phrase, we might refer to this approach as “partnership bydesign”, meaning that policymakers and practitioners should identify and solicit input from potential partners
prior to the implementation of new policies and practices. But catchphrases aside, the importance of multistakeholder partnerships is deeply enshrined in the history of the UN Crime Congresses and in Sustainable
Development Goal 17 on partnerships for sustainable development.

VI. “THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW” – THE STRUGGLE TO TURN THEORYINTO PRACTICE IN THE “DECADE OF ACTION”
In pursuit of civil rights and racial equality in the United States, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in his I Havea Dream speech, spoke of “the fierce urgency of now”, explaining: “This is no time to engage in the luxury ofcooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of
democracy.”71 He spoke these words in 1963, nearly 100 years after slavery was prohibited and equal
protection under the law was guaranteed in the United States. Yet in 1963, the United States struggled toovercome its history of slavery and segregation and, still today, has fallen short of its ideal of achieving atruly inclusive society. Like the struggle for civil rights in the United States – and in some ways directly
connected to it – sensible theories on criminal punishment and effective approaches to offender rehabilitation
have taken centuries to transition from theory into practice.
As this paper has demonstrated, attitudes embracing crime prevention as the principal aim of criminal
punishment were introduced in, and evolved significantly since, the eighteenth century, and sound approaches
to crime prevention aimed at the treatment of offenders and reducing reoffending have been identified
through the UN Crime Congresses since 1955. Yet hostile prison environments, inadequate access torehabilitation programmes and a lack of public awareness and support for offender reintegration continue toplague correctional systems across the globe, threatening the achievement of the SDGs by 2030 andsustainable development in general.
It is time for the field of crime prevention and criminal justice to create its own global narrative to sharewith the world. To some extent, we may be guilty of merely talking to ourselves. If the Crime Congresses
and declarations were sufficient to obtain truly global attention, then no further narrative would be necessary.
Given the slow pace of change and the risk of backsliding, such as with respect to mass incarceration in the
United States, it would appear that a new narrative is necessary. This narrative is intended to amplify – notto supplant – past, current and future work on crime prevention and reducing reoffending; it is intended tobridge the gap between persons and organizations vested in the global crime prevention and criminal justiceagenda and those who are not.
In brief, this narrative begins by ensuring that prison is truly used as a last resort due to the harm
inherently caused by incarceration. For those who must be incarcerated, they must serve their time in arehabilitative environment that provides individually tailored treatment so that prison can be an effective“hook for change”. The use of community-based approaches to offender rehabilitation needs to be enhanced,
69
  Ibid. at para. 116. In addition to a “favourable cost/benefit ratio”, community volunteers should be utilized for their “efficiency
not economy”.
70  Ibid. at para. 114.
71
  Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, (28 Aug. 1963), quoted in The 1963 March on Washington, www.naacp.org(accessed 15 Sep. 2021).

68

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
and non-custodial measures need to be recognized as smarter treatment options that enhance rehabilitation,
facilitate reintegration and increase public safety – and we must do so being ever vigilant against the endless
expansion of correctional control through the phenomena of net widening and mass supervision. Finally, likeour predecessors in Kyoto in 1970, we must affirm our understanding that offender rehabilitation and social
reintegration are the responsibilities of the whole of society. People on the path toward desistence from
crime require continuous support throughout all stages of the justice system and ongoing social support once
they are no longer in contact with the justice system. This whole of society approach should be government
led but community and volunteer driven, and policymakers and practitioners should adopt the principle of“partnership by design”, that is, active identification and solicitation of input from all relevant stakeholders
prior to the implementation of new policies and practices. Upon sharing this narrative in the halls of the
Kyoto International Conference Center, one diplomat called it “revolutionary”. Of course, policymakers andpractitioners know that these concepts are not revolutionary at all. However, we must remember that they
are revolutionary to others – most importantly, to the general public.
Moreover, the narrative should highlight personal stories of people’s paths toward successful rehabilitationand desistance from crime. As the target audience for this narrative is people, the common denominator is
our humanity. Both the youth and former offenders72 have a stake in the narrative and should participate inits promotion.73
But the Decade of Action for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals is now slippingaway. The new model strategies may not be adopted until 2025, leaving us with just five years to implement
the new strategies before 2030. Meanwhile, Covid-19 has undoubtedly disrupted and delayed the 2030 Agenda.
But rather than slowing the pace of change, the Covid-19 pandemic should be an accelerant. Now more thanever, correctional systems have the motivation and the obligation to protect the health of prisoners by
reducing prison populations. Non-custodial measures coupled with social support can achieve this goal while
enhancing public safety. These practices and approaches can be implemented immediately, and it is notnecessary for Member States to wait for the new model strategies. Today, the UNODC and numerous
institutes and organizations, like UNAFEI and the Confederation of European Probation, offer training andtechnical assistance to help turn these ideas into practice.
Recalling that the phrase reducing reoffending does not appear in the 2030 Agenda, it is clear that efforts
to reduce reoffending, in line with the 2021 Kyoto Declaration and the principles of Workshop 2, will not end
in 2030. As a field, we need to start making plans to contribute to the post-2030 development agenda, that is,what follows the SDGs (and reducing reoffending must be added along with measurable targets and indicators).
It will be up to us to promote narratives that deepen the links between reducing reoffending and sustainable
development, and that help the “whole of society” understand our common responsibility to empower “thosemost excluded” as they pursue their paths toward desistance from crime.

VII. CONCLUSION
Recognizing the relationship between reducing reoffending and achieving the SDGs, Workshop 2 of the
Kyoto Congress surveyed policies and practices from around the world and categorized them into threeareas for action: (i) ensuring rehabilitative prison environments, (ii) enhancing the use of non-custodial
measures and (iii) promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships in support of rehabilitation and reintegration.
The practices and approaches discussed are all worthy of international attention and replication based on
the unique legal and cultural circumstances of each implementing jurisdiction.
However, it is important to recognize that many of these practices and approaches are based on goodtheories that are over half-a-century old. Progress achieved by turning these theories into practice has been72

  See Report of the Fourth Crime Congress, at para. 119.
  “Experimentation was being pursued in many countries with the use of ex-offenders in parole, after-care and probation
work, with the use of ex-addicts in the treatment of drug addition, and with similar arrangements by which those who had
had close personal experience of the problems of crime and its treatment brought their experience and willingness to help
others to the tasks of social defence. Provided recruitment screening was careful, there was widespread enthusiasm for more
extensive use of ex-offenders in the tasks of preventing and treating crime.” Report of the Fourth Crime Congress, at para.
120.
73

69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
slow. But consider the impact of failing to help 100,000 people in prison in their good faith efforts to successfully
rehabilitate themselves, or even worse, turning 100,000 non-violent, low-risk offenders into alienated,stigmatized and dangerous criminals, or even violent extremists. If, for example, an estimated 20 per cent ofpeople released from prison would not have reoffended had they received treatment in line with crime
prevention and desistance principles, the failure or inability of a government to provide (or organize)
appropriate treatment and support is a direct threat to public safety that undermines efforts to achievesustainable development.
It bears repeating that the inclusion of Goal 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions in the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development has given the field of crime prevention and criminal justice a global platform
for promoting how effective measures at reducing reoffending can prevent crime and enhance public safety.
To promote and enhance the forthcoming UN model strategies on reducing reoffending, it is incumbent upon
the field of crime prevention and criminal justice to create its own global narrative on reducing reoffending
and to advance that narrative through high-level discussions on sustainable development and by communicating
directly with the general public.
The key message is that crime prevention and reducing reoffending require a whole of society approachto help people desist from crime, as poverty, lack of education, lack of health and well-being, lack of
employment and housing, gender and other forms of inequality and exclusion are cross-cutting development
issues that impact offending, reoffending and the success of society as a whole. A global narrative on reducing
reoffending that is based on the three-pronged thesis of Workshop 2 and the seven principles offered in thispaper can be a powerful and persuasive pitch to legislators, diplomats, executive-branch officials and thegeneral public as we pursue prosperity without crime and the achievement of an inclusive society in which
no one is left behind.

70

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 112APPENDIX

UNAFEIAPPENDIX

Evaluating ‘smarter sentencing’ and‘smarter punishments’: a view fromEngland

Faculty of Law; Fitzwilliam College; University of Cambridge

Introduction

Thank you for this wonderful invitation and opportunity
My plan:- To summarise the current context in England- To reflect on the impact of Covid-19- To review current Government policy initiatives- To conclude with some pointers for good practice(but I’ll start with a brief response and tribute to Mr Lee Ying Wai (Jacky))73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

The English context• By many standards, the UK (England and Wales) has a very high rateof imprisonment (131 per 100k; Japan: 38 only) – and it doubled
between 1994 and 2010! Why?
• Do we have a high level of crime? Very difficult to know: do you look atpolice records, self-reported crime etc. Which crimes matter most?
• Why have we failed to join up prison and probation services effectively?
• The advantages of comparative studies (and the dangers!)• The importance of context: historical, political, social, economic …
• In evaluating a criminal justice system, we have to agree somemeasures or values

Who and what are drivers of the prison populationand of the standards in prisons?
England and Wales: not only a large population, but dreadful conditions
exacerbated by ‘austerity’
Who pulls the strings/levers? Politicians, judges, policy makers,
prosecutors, the media (in that order?)……
Who is responsible for driving up standards? See above, as well as• Chief Inspector of Prisons• Independent Monitoring Board• Prison and Probation BoardNB National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) under OPCAT74

APPENDIX

The impact of COV1D-19
On prison and probation?
• By 31st Oct 2020, 32 prisoners and 23 probation service users had diedhaving tested positive for Covid-19, and 1,529 prisoners had tested
positive for Covid-19 + 21 HMPPS staff had died of Covid-19
On wider criminal justice system?
• Huge issues in relation to policing, legal advice, courts etc.
On us all?
• Domestic violence (up)• Organised violent crime (some up, some down?)• Fraud (huge)

Prison population down (from 83,957 on 6 March 2020, to 78,029 on 8
January 2021): largely due to closure of courts and limits on trials: front
door forces, not earlier releases.
Front door: Judges encouraged to take account of exceptional circs:
Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592; Jones [2020] EWCA Crim 764.
Back door: A new End of Custody Temporary Release (ECTR) introduced
but not really used, and ended in August.
Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) by way of Special Purpose
Licence (SPL): only for the duration of the pandemic.
But CONDITIONS ….. Let’s consider: assaults and self-harm declining?
mental health? contacts with friends and families? progression?
purposeful activities ? …..

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

The real problem: courts not prisons ?

• The remand (pre-trial) population has increased by 28% over the past
year (to 12,274) – now at the highest level for around six years?
• Custody time limits (CTL) have been extended• The CTL National Standard 2020; + a new Protocol for the Effective
Handling of CTLs. Interesting argument between a judge and the LCJ:
R (DPP) v Woolwich Crown Court [2020] EWHC 3243 (Admin): D’s CTL
ended April 2020. LCJ: it had not been open to the Crown Court (in July)to decide that the P had not shown that the need for an extension to the
CTL was due to a good and sufficient cause

Current policy initiatives
New Government December 2019:•The Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020
•Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence)
Order 2020 (SI 2020/158)•a new Counter-Terrorism (Sentencing and Release) Bill is currently
passing through Parliament.

•Now: a White Paper: A Smarter Approach to Sentencing (Sept 2020)(and a ‘root and branch’ review of parole)76

APPENDIX

The White Paper: A Smarter Approach to
Sentencing (Sept 2020)
Govt recognises the need for huge improvement, but is there any
evidence that the important (smarter) things will happen?
Prison Reform Trust: “There’s nothing smart about rehashing punitive
rhetoric and hoping for a different
outcome”. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/Senten
cing•What would be a ‘smarter’ approach?

Deeply punitive (and expensive, often
inappropriate and unduly complex)• Longer tariffs for many discretionary life sentences (2/3rds determinate
equivalent, not ½) – why?
• Increasing the time sex offenders serving the weirdly-named ‘SOPC’(sentence for offenders of particular concern) must spend in prison –why?
• Abolishing automatic halfway release for most sex and violent offenders
who get 4-7 years (already changed for over 7 year sentences simply
by S.I.: Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of
Sentence) Order 2020 – why?
• New power to prevent automatic early release for offenders who
become a terrorist risk during non-terrorist sentence – why?

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112• ‘Whole life’ orders extended, including for 18-20 year olds – why?
(Maybe unlawful as well as morally wrong? See R (Smith) v Secretaryof State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51 and various ECtHR
cases)• Increased starting points for murders committed by children – OH NO!
• Tougher rules on minimum terms for repeat burglars and possessing aknife etc – why?
• Much more ‘tagging’ including ‘House Detention Orders’ (!) and ‘location
monitoring’.
• (Prison population expected to be 4,200 higher in September 2026)

Some probably positive (not new ideas; all requiresignificant funding and plenty of ‘piloting’)• Community sentence treatment requirements• Some unpaid work hours served in a work-related educational ortraining capacity• Criminal records reform: reducing the amount of time some young
people are required to disclose criminal records to prospective
employers• Better quality Pre-sentence Reports (PSRs)• ‘Encourage’ more deferred sentencing• Reduce use of remand for young offenders• Problem solving courts.

78

APPENDIX

Some could be positive or negative:•

Out-of-court disposals: reduce the options to two: community
resolutions and conditional cautions – but why?

•

‘Empowering’ probation: beware the dangers of unaccountable
powers! What weird about-turns in recent years….. (Smartsentencing should see sentencing as a process and not a oneoff event…. So let’s explore the lifetime of a sentence and how it
is ‘managed’.)Re-thinking the context• Many of our prisons are a disgrace, as is the size of the prison
population.
• The injustice of social/economic inequality.
• What are prisons for? Let’s re-think the justifications. As or forpunishment?
• Rethinking what happens on release: if you want to reduce re-offending,
improve support for ex-offenders on release…...
• Is the Government’s ‘root and branch’ review of the Parole Board reallya root and branch review? Let’s also think about the rising recall rates….

79

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

What works to reduce re-offending?

• Most offenders (even most persistent offenders) desist, and they do solargely on their own initiative.
• Factors influencing ‘pathways into crime’ are not necessarily the same
as factors influencing ‘pathways out of crime’.
• Desistance is often a gradual, fragile, obstacle-strewn process.
• The need to individualise ‘treatment’ to be effective.
• The need for understanding support and pro-social relationships: cf.
lack of effective channels for resolving difficulties.

Purposes and priorities?
Section 57 Sentencing Act 2000 (was s. 142 Criminal Justice Act 2003):
any court sentencing an offender must have regard to the following‘purposes of sentencing’:•the punishment of offenders,•the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)•the reform and rehabilitation of offenders,•the protection of the public, and•the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by theiroffences.
BUT no priority. Purpose of prisons? Rule 3 of the Prison Rules 1999:“The purpose of the training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall beto encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life”

80

APPENDIX

Some conclusions

Smarter sentencing means• Recognizing that ‘one size does not fit all’
• Understanding what works to reduce re-offending• Understanding your aims and your priorities (your values)• Investing where it helps, and not wasting money where it doesn’t• Public education and debate really matter

Further Reading !
Dünkel, F, Harrendorf, S and van Zyl Smit, D (2021) The Impact of Covid19 on Prison Conditions and Penal Policy (Routledge)
Padfield, N. (2017) Parole Board oral hearings – exploring the barriers torelease https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3081035
Padfield, N. (2019) Giving and getting parole: the changing characteristics
of parole in England and Wales 11 Eur Journal of Probation 153-168.
Padfield, N (2019) ‘Prisoner Resettlement in England and Wales’ inPrisoner Resettlement in Europe (ed Dunkel, F, Pruin, I, Storgaard, A andWeber, J (Taylor & Francis) pp 86 - 103.
Weitzdorfer J, Shiroshita, Y and Padfield, N (2018) ‘Sentencing andPunishment in Japan and England: A Comparative Discussion’ in Liu, J.
and Miyazawa, S Crime and Justice in Contemporary Japan (Springer
Series on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research), pp. 189-215.

81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

Thank you, again• Questions?

• Please do email me on nmp21@cam.ac.uk

82

APPENDIX"Strategies to Reduce Reoffending: The Outcomeof Workshop 2 of the 14th Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice".
Discussion and Questions

Stephen Pitts
Ambassador
Confederation of European Probation
1
V3.4

•
- To highlight compelling messages from thethree presentations

My Aims- To help identify supports, challenges andfurther areas for consideration in moving
forward successfully as a global community
in reducing reoffending

2

83

RESOURCE.MATERIAL.SERIES.No..112

The Three Presentations – key messages• Reducing Reoffending: Kyoto Congress Workshop and Future Developments - Kayo Ishihara• Practice, drawn from around the world, to meet complex needs• Individualised, community-orientated, multi-partner – the “Rehabilitative Environment”• Model strategies, communication, stakeholder and public awareness• The Kyoto Crime Congress and a Decade of Action – Tom Schmid• Compelling case for change – including increased use of “SMART” community-based orders• A convincing narrative based on the universal platform of the SDGs
• Promoting the Implementation of Rehabilitative Environments in the ASEAN Region –Professor Ayaka Takai• Importance of Technical Assistance, a step-by-step approach• Jurisdictions differ in need, so do practices (RNR, strength based...)• Significance of Responsivity

Brief Agenda• Introductory remarks - aspects of global context• The CEP
• The Three Presentations• Observations on the Presentations• Moving forward globally – Gaps, Challenges,
Conclusions• Questions

484

APPENDIX

Introductory Remarks• 30 years ago: UNAFEI led formulation of the Tokyo Rules• hugely important landmark in the development of community
based (alternative – or main – or SMART) sentences –• In 2021 UNAFEI led, at the Kyoto Congress – Workshop 2• brought together and highlighted leading examples, fromaround the world, of the most forward-thinking and evidencebased practice to reduce reoffending in our field –• Challenge: How do we mainstream (continually evolving): Principles,
Policy and Practice?
 ... Narrative and the SDGs, Model Strategies, a Decade of Action

5...in the intervening 30 years there have been– Many Positive Developments
we can continue to draw on in future, including (to name just a few) ...
Huge increase in our evidencebase – and understanding of how
to continue to expand theevidence base
• Outcome and process research,stakeholder reaction, service
user views (and co-production)• Practice development – focus
individuals and the environment• Rehabilitation influenced
especially by relationships ...
and importance of rehabilitativeenvironments

Role of International
Organisations• United Nations, Council ofEurope – Guidance• UN: Mandela Rules, Bangkok
Rules, Beijing Rules(commitment to diversity)• CoE: Electronic Monitoring,
Prison & Probation Staff
Recruitment and Training• SDGs – a unifying frameworkand force for good and foractionExpansion of international
collaboration – regional andglobal• World Congress on Probation hosted in London (2013), LA,Tokyo, Sydney, and forthcoming
Ottawa (2022)• Collaboration continued throughthe pandemic (although without
the richness of face-to-facecontact)• Growing policy and practiceexchange, mutual development,
technical assistance

6

85

RESOURCE.MATERIAL.SERIES.No..112

Whilst some developments (clearly) not so good
Rising prison populations
Especially, and perhaps evenmore surprisingly, for women.
(Positive) expansion in use ofcommunity sentences• ... but also net-widening and “mass supervision”.

Worrying trends in crime...Some gaps and questions...

• ... including data (what is provided, and impact), compelling
narratives
7

Extract – Global Prison Trends 2021 – PRI - TIJ

86

APPENDIX

Extract – Global Prison Trends 2021 – PRI - TIJ

9

Confederation
eration of European Pro
Probation

Fo nded 1981
Founded
60 Member organisations across 40 countries
Probation agencies, Universities, NGOs, individuals, and more Affiliate organisations around the world
10

87

RESOURCE.MATERIAL.SERIES.No..112

Vision for Europe“To contribute to safer communities by rehabilitating andreintegrating offenders and providing the best possible
interventions to reduce offending and the impact of crime.”
CEP ... promotes pan-European cooperation including by conferences , …reports …partnering res earch,juris diction reports , digital news letter, webs ite; CEP s timulates exchange of ideas on probation in
Europe – and contributes enthus ias tically to the World Congres s on P robation!
11

Presentation 1
Reducing
Reoffending:
Kyoto Congress
Workshop andFutureDevelopments –Kayo Ishihara• Keynote Speech: Professor Fergus McNeill• Panel I: Creating Rehabilitative Prison
Environments• Panel II: Community-Based Approaches that
Support Desistance• Panel III: Taking a Multifaceted Approach to
Ensure Continuous Support and Services for
Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Offenders

1288

APPENDIX

Presentation 1
Reducing
Reoffending:
Kyoto Congress
Workshop andFutureDevelopments –Kayo Ishihara

Conclusions• Reducing reoffending is critical for inclusive societies - SDGs
• Recommendations for Future – including• Rehabilitative environments (Prisons – and community)• Resources and realism!
• Public Awareness and Volunteers• Diversity, gender-focused, restorative• Statistics, causes, solutions, evidence
Model strategies to reduce reoffending• The Key: Overarching approach, rehabilitative environments
throughout, continuity of interventions and support, multistakeholder and community-based approach

13• The practices and conclusions regarding ways
forward (and developing rehabilitativeenvironments and supporting desistance inparticular), require professionals and communities,
in all its facets, to work together in a variety ofcomplex, evolving and mutually understood ways:

Presentation
1
Observations• “Desistance – a natural process which is bigger
than professional practice ... But can be supported
by policy and practice”*• What is or are the role(s) of prison and probation
services in facilitating this complex interaction?
 A case for convincing narrative backed by data Policy influence and practice collaboration
 “Supervision as Mediation”**(McNeill 2020)

14

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

The Desistance Paradigm – Understanding desistance(and implications for policy and practice)
Maturation

Places,Access toSpaces,
VenuesRoutines
designed for
wider communities

Desistance
Narrative
Identities

Taking time including support
after supervision ends

Social
Bonds

Especiallynon-offenders

Describing self as member of a
Community rather than offender“Desistance – A natural process which is bigger than professional practice... but can be supported by policy and practice”
Quotation and illustration adapted from Fergus McNeill - “Supervision as Mediation” - On-line ICPA Learning Academy, Nov. 2020.

Presentation 2 –The Kyoto Crime
Congress and a
Decade of Action
to 2030 – Tom
SchmidThe Sustainable Development Goals are an
unprecedented platform to advocate for change inthe way we – as a global community – view,interact with and support offenders on their paths
towards desistance from crime
It’s up to us to frame the narrative and drive change.
Sustainable development-a three-dimensional operational framework of theUnited Nations that pursues:i.
Economic developmentii.
Social developmentiii.
Environmental development
1690

APPENDIX

Presentation 2– The Kyoto
Crime Congress
and a Decade of
Action to 2030

Imprisonment as a less desirable alternative to community sentences• POINT 4: Non-custodial measures are the “smarter option” andenhance public safety• POINT 6: “Whole of society” approach to
reducing reoffending (development led)

Decade of Action –Model Strategies ,Development Agenda ,Adoption of 2030 Agenda• POINT 7: Government led but
community/volunteer driven (“partnershipby design”)

17

Presentation2
Observations• The SDGs undoubtedly provide a platform for
how we view, interact with and support
offenders – and for changing all three.
• Reducing Reoffending is critical for inclusive
societies - SDGs
• The SDGs provide a critical framework forreducing reoffending• Communicating the principles is critical tosuccess...
• ...as is turning them into action – in thepolitical, public and practice domains• Are there models that demonstrate“interdependency” in practice?
18

91

RESOURCE.MATERIAL.SERIES.No..112

Connecting desistance support and the SDGs in practice: Some examples,but most are mainly prison-based!

Presentation2
Observations• CLINK Charity (UK) - The Clink Restaurant approach includes
realistic prison work experience (hospitality, horticulture,sustainability), community mentor support, links with industry
employers. Circa 100,000 members of the public have dined inprison-located restaurants (all of which have been voted No. 1 on
TripAdvisor), helping to change public perceptions and attitudes
towards prisoners and reintegration – 65.6% Reduced Reoffending• ICRC - Panama - Turning a problem into an opportunity inprisons -“EcoSolidos” The 4 Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Resocialise) 90% waste reused by prisoners, bricks sold, gardens –food grown, and forestation – “Sowing Peace” programme• A community-based example: Kenya – Probation and After Care
Service: Community Service. Environmentally and sustainably
friendly, SDG supporting, gender-sensitive female-specific,
Empowerment projects.
• Is Community Service work a (largely) undeveloped area of
potential?
19

Presentation 3
Promoting the
Implementation of
Rehabilitative
Environments in the
ASEAN Region
Professor TAKAI
Ayaka(A) Progressive Development in the ASEAN Region... a “step by step” approach... with international support... differing jurisdiction needs and priorities... and different practice approaches (RNR, GLM)
(B) Four aspects of Rehabilitative Environments
1. Active use of Non-custodial Measures
2. Evidence-based interventions responding toindividuals’ specific needs (RNA) (Also Good Lives
Model)
3. Continuity of care and support (CARE)
Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Exoffenders (CARE) Network
4. Multi-stakeholder approach
All aspects make their essential contribution to
Rehabilitative Environments...

92

20

APPENDIX• Approaches to developing rehabilitative environments - addressed in the context
of Technical Assistance.
• Importance of Responding to need and to difference

Presentation
3Observations• Technical Assistance is a still-developing field - especially in the area of probationwork• Solving local problems seems to work better than importing “ready-madesolutions” (unless there is adequate groundwork to help ensure suitability tocontext and resources)• Policy transfer, policy exchange, or a “partnership”? We all bring something
to the table• Transfer of principles (of effective practice) and know-how; “What wastransferred ... was knowledge*”.
• (Sometimes) a discrepancy between international standards and national
priorities• To what extent are there global justice “solutions”? When should we think
and work regionally (is there a “regional criminology”?) or nationally? What
does an appreciation of Decolonialisation offer?
• Inter-regional learning and transfer• Mult-directional, e.g., to the West including from Asia. Examples: emphasis
on importance of communities, role and value of a strong volunteer
movement (VPOs in Japan), the value of Restorative Practices and otherforms of Alternative Dispute Resolution*Durnescu, I., Haines, K. (2012). Probation in Romania: Archaeology of a Partnership.

21

British Journal of Criminology 52(5):889-907

Moving Forward- Gaps andChallenges

Leaving no-one behind“We need to stop justpulling people out of
the river... We need to
go upstream and findout why they’re fallingin (Desmond Tutu)”• Redress balance of custodial and community sentences• Address use of pre-trial detention, sentence length, parole• Continue to improve reintegration and desistance support• Also, attention to vulnerability including mental health, anddiversity (individuals and communities) - Responsivity• Working effectively with challenging offences and offenders• Attending to staff (number, training) and infrastructure• Utilize technology as a complement to support desistance• Improve global and regional statistics, data, knowledge of what ishappening on the ground, and evidence• Continue to improve opportunities to learn from and support eachother – globally – and through regional networking• Embracing principles informed by the the SDGs and approaches
including restorative, support desistance, victims and communities• Do so while responding to (and helping to address) global
challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and migrations

22

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

Moving Forward
Conclusions“We need a

Declaration of Interdependance”(John Kennedy
1962)

The three presentations, and the workshop
they report on, distil much of the essence ofwhat needs to be done in the present
decade - a roadmap to reduce reoffending:Defining principles with universal
recognition (which the SDGs inform)
Framing convincing narratives based ondata/evidence
Engaging stakeholders and the public indelivering interconnected policy andpractice that benefit us all and leave noone behind
23

Questions - 1
Rehabilitative environments and communities require multistakeholder understanding and “buy-in”, as does acceptance of least
restrictive penalty and proportionality – including use of “SMART”
community sentences. Communication matters: What are some of
the key messages about our work and the importance of community
engagement that we can offer to increase public awareness andstakeholder buy-in? Do the messages differ according to theaudience (including prosecutors and judges)?

24

94

APPENDIX

Questions - 2
Building on the platform of the SDGs, and taking into account economic, socialand environmental development, how can we most effectively frame thenarrative and drive change for custodial and community-sentenced offenders inways that empower, support desistance, and involve whole societies (including
offenders) in building sustainable and safer communities? Can (the still relativelyfew) prison-based sustainability or empowerment initiatives be extended tocommunity sentences? Will approaches differ according to factors such as region,
jurisdiction stage of development, or wealth?
The SDGs provide a platform for how we view, interact with, and support
offenders – and for changing all three. Do we have grounds for optimism?

25

Questions - 3a) Does Covid-19 provide an upside - a possibility of “Building Back
Better”? If so, how?
b) Can evolving technology - used more during the pandemic - beused positively, including to assist rehabilitation?

26

95

RESOURCE.MATERIAL.SERIES.No..112

Questions - 4
What does a step-by-step approach to technical assistance mean inpractice? How are the most useful steps (acceptable to all parties
including the recipient jurisdiction) identified and prioritized in a
specific country or jurisdiction? How can a regional network assist?

27

www.cep probation.org
www.cep-probation.org
info@cep-probation.org@CEP probation@CEPprobation

CEP Probation
28

96

APPENDIXPHOTOGRAPHSThe 14th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice(Kyoto, Japan, 7-12 March 2021)

Opening CeremonyGroup Photo
97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

Workshop 2: Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions

98

APPENDIX

Alumni Webinars

First Alumni Webinar on 30 September 2020

Second Alumni Webinar on 19 November 2020

99RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

Asian Criminological Society

UNAFEI’s Panel Discussion on the outcome of Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress(12th Annual Meeting of the Asian Criminological Society, 18-21 June 2021)

100

APPENDIXRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES INDEX
Vol.

Course No.

Course Dates

1

Public Participation in Social Defence

25

Sep-Dec 1970

2

Administration of Criminal Justice26

Jan-Mar 1971

3

[Corrections]27

Apr-Jul 1971

[Police, Prosecution and Courts]

28

Sep-Dec 1971

Social Defence Planning

29

Feb-Mar 1972

Treatment of Crime and Delinquency

30

Apr-Jul 1972

United Nations Training Course in Human Rights in the
Administration of Criminal Justicen/a

Aug-Sep 1972

Administration of Criminal Justice31

Sep-Dec 1972

4
5
6

Training Course Name

Reform in Criminal Justice32

Feb-Mar 1973

Treatment of Offenders

33

Apr-Jul 1973

7

[Administration of Criminal Justice]34

Sep-Dec 1973

8

Planning and Research for Crime Prevention

35

Feb-Mar 1974

Administration of Criminal Justice36

Apr-Jun 1974

International Evaluation Seminar37

Jul 1974

Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents and Youthful Offenders

38

Sep-Nov 1974

The Roles and Functions of the Police in a Changing Society

39

Feb-Mar 1975

9
10

Treatment of Offenders

40

Apr-Jul 1975

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 1-10 (p. 139)n/a

Oct 1975

11

Improvement in the Criminal Justice System

41

Sep-Dec 1975

12

Formation of a Sound Sentencing Structure and Policy

42

Feb-Mar 1976

Treatment of Offenders

43

Apr-Jul 1976

13

Exploration of Adequate Measures for Abating and Preventing
Crimes of Violence

44

Sep-Dec 1976

14

Increase of Community Involvement

45

Feb-Mar 1977

Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents and Youthful Offenders

46

Apr-Jul 1977

Speedy and Fair Administration of Criminal Justice47

Sep-Dec 1977

Prevention and Control of Social and Economic Offences48

Feb-Mar 1978

Report of United Nations Human Rights Training Coursen/a

Dec 1977

Treatment of Offenders

49

Apr-Jul 1978

Dispositional Decisions in Criminal Justice Process50

Sep-Dec 1978

Treatment of Dangerous or Habitual Offenders

51

Feb-Mar 1979

Community-Based Corrections

52

Apr-Jul 1979

18

Roles of the Criminal Justice System in Crime Prevention

53

Sep-Dec 1979

19

Arrest and Pre-Trial Detention

54

Feb-Mar 1980

Institutional Treatment of Adult Offenders

55

Apr-Jul 1980

Institutional Treatment of Adult Offenders

55

Apr-Jul 1980

Integrated Approach to Effective and Efficient Administration of
Criminal Justice56

Sep-Nov 1980

15

16
17

20

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 1-20 (p. 203)
21

Crime Prevention and Sound National Development

Mar 1981
57

Feb-Mar 1981

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

Integrated Approach to Effective Juvenile Justice Administration(including Proposed Guidelines for the Formulation of theStandard Minimum Rules for Juvenile Justice Administration: A
draft prepared by UNAFEI on the basis of the reports of thestudy groups at the 58th International Training Course)

58

May-Jul 1981

Contemporary Problems in Securing an Effective, Efficient andFair Administration of Criminal Justice and Their Solutions

59

Feb-Mar 1982

Securing Rational Exercise of Discretionary Powers at
Adjudication and Pre-adjudication Stages of Criminal Justice
Administration

60

Apr-Jul 1982

23

Improvement of Correctional Programmes for More Effective
Rehabilitation of Offenders

61

Sep-Nov 1982

24

Promotion of Innovations for Effective, Efficient and Fair
Administration of Criminal Justice62

Feb-Mar 1983

Community-Based Corrections

63

Apr-Jul 1983

The Quest for a Better System and Administration of Juvenile
Justice64

Sep-Dec 1983

Documents Produced during the International Meeting of Expertson the Development of the United Nations Draft Standard
Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justicen/a

Nov 1983

International Cooperation in Criminal Justice Administration

65

Feb-Mar 1984

Promotion of Innovation in the Effective Treatment of Prisoners
in Correctional Institutions

66

Apr-Jul 198427

An Integrated Approach to Drug Problems

67

Sep-Dec 1984

28

Contemporary Asian Problems in the Field of Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice, and Policy Implications

68

Feb-Mar 1985

Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committeeof Experts on UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directions

n/a

Mar 1985

Report of the International Workshop on the Role of Youth
Organizations in the Prevention of Crime Among Youthn/a

Jul 1985

Follow-up Team for Ex-Participants of UNAFEI Courses

n/a

Dec 1985

Community-Based Corrections

69

Apr-Jul 1985

29

In Pursuit of Greater Effectiveness and Efficiency in the Juvenile
Justice System and Its Administration70

Sep-Dec 1985

30

Promotion of Innovation in Criminal Justice Administration for
the Prevention of New Criminality

71

Feb-Mar 1986

The Quest for Effective and Efficient Treatment of Offenders in
Correctional Institutions

72

Apr-Jul 1986

Economic Crime: Its Impact on Society and Effective Prevention73

Sep-Nov 1986

Report of the International Seminar on Drug Problems in Asiaand the Pacific Regionn/a

Aug 1986

Advancement of Fair and Humane Treatment of Offenders andVictims in Criminal Justice Administration74

Feb-Mar 1987

Non-institutional Treatment of Offenders: Its Role andImprovement for More Effective Programmes

75

Apr-Jun 1987

Evaluation of UNAFEIʼs International Courses on Prevention of
Crime and Treatment of Offenders, and Drug Problems in Asia

76

Aug-Sep 1987

Crime Related to Insurance77

Oct-Dec 1987

22

25

26

31

32

33

102

APPENDIX

Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committeeof Experts on UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directionsn/a

Sep 1987

Report of the Workshop on Implementation Modalities for the
Twenty-Three Recommendations Adopted by the International
Seminar on Drug Problems in Asia and the Pacific Regionn/a

Sep 1987

Footprints, Contemporary Achievements and Future
Perspectives in Policies for Correction and Rehabilitation of
Offenders78

Feb-Mar 1988

Search for the Solution of the Momentous and Urgent Issues inContemporary Corrections

79

Apr-Jul 1988

Resolution of the Asia and Pacific Regional Experts Meetingn/a

Mar 1988

Report of the Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Draft
Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (TheTokyo Rules)n/a

Jul 1988

35

Quest for Effective International Countermeasures to Pressing
Problems of Transnational Criminality

80

Sep-Nov 1988

36

Advancement of the Integration of Criminal Justice
Administration

81

Feb-Mar 1989

Innovative Measures for Effective and Efficient Administration of
Institutional Correctional Treatment of Offenders

82

Apr-Jul 1989

Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Adolescence and Crime
Prevention in the ESCAP Regionn/a

Aug 1989

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in the Context ofDevelopment83

Sep-Nov 1989

International Workshop on Victimology and Victimʼs Rights

n/a

Oct 1989

Policy Perspectives on Contemporary Problems in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Administration

84

Jan-Mar 1990

Wider Use and More Effective Implementation of Non-custodial
Measures for Offenders

85

Apr-Jun 1990

39

Search for Effective and Appropriate Measures to Deal with the
Drug Problem

86

Sep-Dec 1990

40

Development of an Effective International Crime and Justice
Programme

87

Jan-Mar 1991

Institutional Treatment of Offenders in Special Categories

88

Apr-Jul 1991

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 21-40 (p. 333)

n/a

n/a

41

Effective and Innovative Countermeasures against Economic
Crime

89

Sep-Dec 1991

42

Quest for Solutions of the Pressing Problems of Contemporary
Criminal Justice Administration

90

Jan-Feb 1992

Further Use and Effectual Development of Non-Custodial
Measures for Offenders

91

Apr-Jul 1992

43

Quest for Effective Methods of Organized Crime Control

92

Sep-Nov 1992

44

Policy Perspective for Organized Crime Suppression

93

Feb-Mar 1993

Current Problems in Institutional Treatment and Their Solution

94

Apr-Jul 199345

Effective Countermeasures against Crimes Related to
Urbanization and Industrialization—Urban Crime, Juvenile
Delinquency and Environmental Crime95

Sep-Dec 1993

46

Promotion of International Cooperation in Criminal Justice
Administration

96

Jan-Mar 1994

34

37

38

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

Effective Treatment of Drug Offenders and Juvenile Delinquents

97

Apr-Jul 1994

47

Economic Crime and Effective Countermeasures against It

98

Sep-Dec 1994

48

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice: Public
Participation and the Prevention of Corruption

99

Jan-Mar 1995

The Institutional Treatment of Offenders: Relationships with
Other Criminal Justice Agencies and Current Problems in
Administration

100

Apr-Jul 1995

49

The Fair and Efficient Administration of Criminal Justice: The
Proper Exercise of Authority and Procedural Justice101

Sep-Dec 1995

50

Crime Prevention through Effective Firearms Regulation

102

Jan-Mar 1996

51

Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through theStrengthening of Non-custodial Measures

103

Apr-Jul 1996

International Cooperation in Criminal Justice Administration

104

Sep-Nov 1996

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice for thePrevention of Corruption by Public Officials

105

Jan-Feb 1997

The Quest for Effective Juvenile Justice Administration

106

Apr-Jul 1997

The Role and Function of Prosecution in Criminal Justice107

Sep-Nov 1997

The Ninth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee ofExperts on UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directionsn/a

Oct 1997

Current Problems in the Combat of Organized Transnational
Crime

108

Jan-Feb 1998

Effective Treatment Measures for Prisoners to Faciliate Their
Reintegration into Society

109

Apr-Jul 1998

Effective Countermeasures against Economic and Computer
Crime

110

Aug-Nov 1998

The Role of Police, Prosecution and the Judiciary in the Changing
Society111

Jan-Feb 1999

Participation of the Public and Victims for More Fair andEffective Criminal Justice112

Apr-Jul 1999

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice for thePrevention of Corrupt Activities by Public Officials

113

Aug-Nov 1999

International Cooperation to Combat Transnational Organized
Crime—with Special Emphasis on Mutual Legal Assistance andExtradition

114

Jan-Feb 2000

Current Issues in Correctional Treatment and Effective
Countermeasures

115

May-Jun 2000

Effective Methods to Combat Transnational Organized Crime in
Criminal Justice Processes

116

Aug-Nov 2000

Current Situation and Countermeasures against Money
Laundering

117

Jan-Feb 2001

Best Practices in the Institutional and Community-Based
Treatment of Juvenile Offenders

118

May-Jul 2001

Current Situation of and Countermeasures against Transnational
Organized Crime

119

Sep-Nov 2001

60

Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in
Criminal Justice120

Jan-Feb 2002

61

Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration
at all Stages of the Criminal Justice Process

121

May-Jul 2002

52
53

54

55

56

57

58

59

104

APPENDIX

62

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice to Tackle
Trafficking Human Beings and Smuggling of Migrants

122

Sep-Oct 2002

63

The Protection of Victims of Crime and the Active Participationof Victims in the Criminal Justice Process Specifically
Considering Restorative Justice Approaches

123

Jan-Feb 2003

64

The Effective Prevention and Enhancement of Treatment for
Drug Abusers in the Criminal Justice Process

124

Apr-Jun 2003

65

Effective Countermeasures against Illicit Drug Trafficking andMoney Laundering125

Sep-Oct 2003

Sixth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

6th UNCAC

66

Economic Crime in a Globalizing Society—Its Impact on theSound Development of the State

126

Jan-Feb 2004

67

Implementing Effective Measures for the Treatment of Offenders
after Fifty Years of United Nations Standard Setting in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice127

May-Jun 2004

Measures to Combat Economic Crime, Including Money
Laundering

128

Aug-Oct 2004

68

Crime Prevention in the 21st Century—Effective Prevention of
Crime Associated with Urbanization Based upon Community
Involvement and Prevention of Youth Crime and Juvenile
Delinquency

129

Jan-Feb 2005

69

Integrated Strategies to Confront Domestic Violence and Child
Abuse

130

May-Jun 2005

7th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2005

Seventh Special Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

Nov 2003

70

The Use and Application of the United Nations Declaration of
Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse ofPower—Twenty Years after Its Adoption

131

Aug-Oct 2005

71

Strengthening the Legal Regime for Combating Terrorism

132

Jan-Feb 2006

Eighth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

8th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2005

72

Effective Prevention and Enhancement of Treatment for Sexual
Offenders133

May-Jun 2006

73

Challenges in the Investigation, Prosecution and Trial ofTransnational Organized Crime

134

Aug-Oct 2006

Ninth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

9th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2006

74

Promoting Public Safety and Controlling Recidivism Using
Effective Interventions with Offenders: An Examination of Best
Practices

135

Jan-Feb 200775

Effective Measures for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders andtheir Reintegration into Society

136

May-Jun 200776

Corporate Crime and the Criminal Liability of Corportate Entities

137

Sep-Oct 2007

10th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2007

Tenth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption
77

Effective Legal and Practical Measures for Combating Corruption:
A Criminal Justice Response

138

Jan-Feb 2008

78

Profiles and Effective Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile
Offenders

139

May-Jun 2008

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

79

140

Sep-Oct 2008

Eleventh International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

11th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2008

The Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through the
Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration

141

Jan-Feb 2009

Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding of Correctional
Facilities

142

May-Jun 2009

Twelfth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

12th UNCAC

Jul-Aug 2009

Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and Law
Enforcement Officials

143

Sep-Nov 200981

The Enhancement of Appropriate Measures for Victims of Crime
at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process

144

Jan-Feb 201082

Effective Resettlement of Offenders by Strengthening“Community Reintegration Factors”

145

May-Jun 2010

83

Attacking the Proceeds of Crime: Identification, Confiscation,
Recovery and Anti-Money Laundering Measures

146

Aug-Oct 2010

The 13th International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

13th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 201080

The Criminal Justice Response to Cybercrime

84

Community Involvement in Offender Treatment

147

Jan-Feb 201185

Drug Offender Treatment: New Approaches to an Old Problem

148

May-Jun 2011

86

Securing Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses and Whistleblowers

149

Aug-Sep 2011

Effective Legal and Practical Measures against Corruption

14th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 201187

Trafficking in Persons—Prevention, Prosecution, Victim
Protection and Promotion of International Cooperation

150

Jan-Feb 201288

Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders

151

May-Jun 201289

Trafficking in Persons—Prevention, Prosecution, Victim
Protection and Promotion of International Cooperation

152

Aug-Sep 2012

Effective Legal and Practical Measures against Corruption

15th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2012

90

Treatment of Female Offenders

153

Jan-Feb 2013

91

Stress Management of Correctional Personnel—Enhancing the
Capacity of Mid-Level Staff

154

May-Jun 201392

Effective Collection and Utilization of Evidence in Criminal Cases

155

Aug-Oct 2013

Effective Measures to Prevent and Combat Corruption and to
Encourage Cooperation between the Public and Private Sectors

16th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2013

93

Protection for Victims of Crime and Use of Restorative Justice
Programmes

156

Jan-Feb 201494

Assessment and Treatment of Special Needs Offenders

157

May-Jun 201495

Measures for Speedy and Efficient Criminal Trials

158

Aug-Sep 2014

17th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2014

Effective Measures to Prevent and Combat Corruption Focusing
on Identifying, Tracing, Freezing, Seizing, Confiscating andRecovering Proceeds of Corruption
96

Public Participation in Community Corrections

159

Jan-Feb 201597

The State of Cybercrime: Current Issues and Countermeasures

160

May-Jun 201598

Staff Training for Correctional Leadership

161

Aug-Sep 2015

18th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2015

Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement and Public-Private andInternational Cooperation
106

APPENDIX

99

Multi-Agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders

162

Jan-Feb 2016

100

Children as Victims and Witnesses

163

May-Jun 2016101

Effective Measures for Treatment, Rehabilitation and Social
Reintegration of Juvenile Offenders

164

Aug-Sep 2016

Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement (Investigation andProsecution) in the Area of Procurement

19th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2016

102

Juvenile Justice and the United Nations Standards and Norms

165

Jan-Feb 2017

103

Criminal Justice Procedures and Practices to Disrupt Criminal
Organizations

166

May-Jun 2017

104

Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Organized Crime
Members and Terrorists

167

Aug-Sep 2017

Effective Measures to Investigate the Proceeds of Corruption
Crimes20th UNCAC

Nov-Dec 2017

105

Enhancing the Rule of Law in the Field of Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice: Policies and Practices Based on the United
Nations Conventions and Standards and Norms

168

Jan-Feb 2018

106

Criminal Justice Practices against Illicit Drug Trafficking

169

May-Jun 2018

107

Treatment of Illicit Drug Users

170

Aug-Sep 2018

Effective Criminal Justice Practices through International
Cooperation and Engagement of Civil Society for Combating
Corruption

21st UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2018108

Criminal Justice Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance
and Discrimination

171

Jan-Feb 2019109

Criminal Justice Responses to Trafficking in Persons andSmuggling of Migrants

172

May-Jun 2019110

Tackling Violence against Women and Children through Offender
Treatment: Prevention of Reoffending

173

Aug-Sep 2019

Detection, Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of HighProfile Corruption

22nd UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2019111

Prevention of Reoffending and Fostering Social Inclusion: From
Policy to Good Practice174

Jan-Feb 2020

112

n/a  (Training programmes postponed due to the Covid-19
pandemic)

n/a

n/a

107

ISSN 0256-5471
ISBN 978-4-87033-336-9

Printed in Japan by KITAJIMA Co., LTD.