Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
### 4. Peacebuilding

The numerous regional and internal/intrastate conflicts arising from ethnic, religious, or historical differences continue to pose problems for the international community. Such conflicts generate a great number of refugees and internally displaced persons and easily become humanitarian and human rights issues. Moreover, such conflicts destroy many achievements gained through years of development efforts and cause massive economic loss. For this reason, “peacebuilding”

##

As for specific efforts, Japan has provided assistance that includes refugee assistance and food aid in times of conflict, and assistance in the area of the peace process such as election assistance. Assistance is provided in the aftermath of conflicts to ensure domestic security and safety with the aim of consolidating peace, including assistance for the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of former soldiers and reconstruction efforts in the security sector. Additionally, Japan has supported reconstruction by promoting efforts for the return of refugees and internally displaced persons and their resettlement, as well as by restoring that bears the prevention of relapses into conflict and the creation of development foundations for the consolidation of sustainable peace in mind is a challenge for the international community as a whole. For example, discussions concerning a consistent approach that begins with the resolution of conflicts and continues to recovery, reconstruction, and nation building are carried out at forums such as the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) that was established in 2005.

basic infrastructure.

Furthermore, in order to establish consolidated peace and prevent the rise of another conflict, efforts are made in the social sector such as in health and education, as well as toward support for developing economic infrastructure and institutions and strengthening governmental, judicial, and police functions. Japan combines assistance provided via multilateral organizations with bilateral assistance, such as grant aid, technical cooperation, and loan aid, in order to provide this type of seamless assistance.

Chart III-9 Conceptual Diagram of Peacebuilding
## Section 3 Assistance for Each Region

The challenges and problems vary according to the countries and regions. Japan works to resolve the problems faced by developing countries through ODA, taking into consideration the structures behind these problems.

(US$ million)

Type	Bilateral ODA	Total	Percent of total (%)	Change from the previous year (%)
Grants
Region	Grant aid	Technical cooperation	Total	Loan aid
Asia	596.90	119.56	961.54	1,558.44	659.60	2,218.05 (7,798.90)	36.5 (59.3)	106.6 (3.9)
East Asia	279.18	36.56	780.43	1,059.60	74.23	1,133.83 (5,518.38)	18.6 (42.0)	3785.5 (22.1)
Northeast Asia	48.59	6.36	365.42	414.01	-181.89	232.12 (1,354.81)	3.8 (10.3)	-34.2 (1.8)
Southeast Asia	230.39	30.00	406.97	637.36	256.12	893.48 (4,155.33)	14.7 (31.6)	-371.1 (30.6)
South Asia	246.41	58.20	130.68	377.09	466.08	843.18 (1,973.03)	13.9 (15.0)	0.8 (-27.9)
Central Asia and the Caucasus	55.09	8.58	38.17	93.26	119.31	212.56 (279.01)	3.5 (2.1)	29.8 (33.0)
Others	16.22	16.22	12.27	28.49	-0.01	28.47 (28.49)	0.5 (0.2)	-35.6 (-35.6)
Middle East	315.92	158.59	139.73	455.65	45.02	500.67 (1,185.07)	8.2 (9.0)	-78.9 (-62.4)
Africa	1,012.13	349.65	331.11	1,343.24	59.98	1,403.22 (1,556.02)	23.1 (11.8)	0.5 (4.0)
Latin America	124.37	14.33	213.51	377.87	-195.29	142.58 (732.70)	2.3 (5.6)	-47.1 (-4.7)
Oceania	82.06	17.09	46.29	128.35	-16.45	111.90 (129.83)	1.8 (1.0)	53.4 (-22.2)
Europe	11.74	0.39	23.04	34.78	121.68	156.46 (200.20)	2.6 (1.5)	4.4 (4.8)
Eastern Europe	2.37	0.05	4.60	6.97	49.64	56.61 (93.96)	0.9 (0.7)	-39.3 (-26.7)
Assistance encompassing multiple regions	68.59	0.98	1,479.53	1,548.12	0.00	1,548.12 (1,548.12)	25.5 (11.8)	-3.6 (-3.6)
Total	2,211.70	660.59	3,194.75	5,406.45	674.55	6,081.00 (13,150.85)	100.0 (100.0)	-12.4 (-11.7)

$ ^{*1} $ Includes debt relief.

$ ^{*2} $ Technical cooperation assistance encompassing multiple regions includes technical cooperation for which it is not possible to classify the region, such as the dispatch of survey teams to more than one region, subsidies for foreign student support organizations, administrative costs, and promotion of development awareness.

$ ^{*3} $ Due to rounding, the total figure may not match the sum of each number.

$ ^{*} $ 4 Including assistance to Eastern Europe and graduated countries.

$ ^{*5} $ Grants provided through multilateral institutions have conventionally been reported as “Contributions and subscriptions to multilateral institutions, etc.” However, since 2006,

expenditures clearly addressing a country at the point of disbursement are considered as bilateral ODA and therefore newly reported as "Grant aid."

$ ^{*} $ 6 Numbers in parenthesis indicate values when calculated on a net disbursement basis.
2009 (calendar year)

(Net disbursements, US$ million)

Rank	Country or region	Grants	Total	Loan aid	Total	Total
Grant aid	Technical cooperation	Amount disbursed	Amount recovered
Grants provided through multilateral institutions
1	India	4.50	2.19	27.97	32.47	1,191.72	707.18	484.54	517.01
2	Pakistan	116.15	38.40	15.62	131.77	38.68	39.02	-0.34	131.43
3	Sri Lanka	31.94	5.94	23.46	55.40	295.76	259.53	36.23	91.62
4	Nepal	34.37	1.93	20.46	54.82	0.10	9.64	-9.55	45.28
5	Bhutan	12.63	7.71	20.33	3.59	0.00	3.59	23.92
6	Maldives	9.87	2.38	12.25	5.73	0.00	5.73	17.99
7	Bangladesh	36.96	9.74	31.25	68.21	60.36	114.48	-54.12	14.09
Multiple countries in South Asia	1.84	1.84	1.84
South Asia region total	246.41	58.20	130.68	377.09	1,595.94	1,129.85	466.08	843.18

$ ^{*1} $ Region classifications are determined by MOFA.

$ ^{*2} $ Due to rounding, the total figure may not match the sum of each number.

$ ^{*3} $ Figures in parentheses do not include debt cancellation.

$ ^{*} $ 4 “Multiple countries” refers to assistance encompassing multiple countries such as dispatch of study teams and seminars.
2009 (calendar year)

(Net disbursements, US$ million)

Rank	Country or region	Grants	Total	Loan aid	Total
Grant aid	Technical cooperation	Amount disbursed	Amount recovered	Total
Grants provided through multilateral institutions
1	Costa Rica	0.81	6.53	7.33	61.64	10.68	50.96	58.29
2	Honduras	31.03	10.69	41.72	41.72
3	Paraguay	2.67	16.26	18.93	63.34	44.96	18.37	37.31
4	Panama	1.33	0.32	6.72	8.05	32.95	7.49	25.45	33.51
5	Bolivia	16.33	4.82	16.14	32.47	0.69	-0.69	31.78
6	Guatemala	1.19	10.01	11.20	23.01	8.24	14.77	25.97
7	Haiti	24.45	2.39	0.39	24.84	24.84
8	Nicaragua	7.10	5.35	10.29	17.39	17.39
9	Argentina	0.03	11.52	11.55	0.00	2.55	-2.56	9.00
10	Chile	1.00	9.12	10.12	0.00	2.22	-2.22	7.90
11	Saint Lucia	5.01	1.39	6.40	6.40
12	Guyana	3.99	0.23	0.65	4.64	4.64
13	Commonwealth of Dominica	3.31	1.15	4.46	4.46
14	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	2.78	0.89	3.67	3.67
15	Cuba	0.85	2.77	3.63	3.63
16	Uruguay	0.81	3.69	4.50	2.07	-2.07	2.43
17	Venezuela	0.38	1.74	2.13	2.13
18	Belize	0.11	1.59	1.70	1.70
19	Antigua and Barbuda	0.00	0.97	0.97	0.97
20	Grenada	0.11	0.57	0.68	0.68
21	Suriname	0.21	0.05	0.26	0.26
22	Dominican Republic	0.26	10.64	10.89	10.66	-10.66	0.23
23	Trinidad and Tobago	0.08	0.00	0.08	0.08
24	Barbados	0.04	0.04	0.04
25	Saint Christopher and Nevis	0.03	0.03	0.03
26	El Salvador	4.07	10.21	14.28	2.89	20.99	-18.10	-3.82
27	Jamaica	0.15	3.58	3.74	10.32	19.31	-8.99	-5.25
28	Colombia	5.15	0.37	6.62	11.77	18.47	-18.47	-6.69
29	Ecuador	5.44	9.31	14.75	26.51	-26.51	-11.76
30	Mexico	2.04	13.66	15.70	8.23	54.64	-46.41	-30.71
31	Peru	1.47	0.33	10.87	12.34	123.27	172.39	-49.12	-36.77
32	Brazil	2.17	0.47	23.69	25.86	69.18	188.25	-119.07	-93.21
Multiple countries in Latin America and the Caribbean	0.05	0.05	11.71	11.75	11.75
Latin America and the Caribbean region total	124.37	14.33	213.51	337.87	394.83	590.12	-195.29	142.58

$ ^{*1} $ Region classifications are determined by MOFA.

$ ^{*} $ 2 Due to rounding, the total figure may not match the sum of each number.

$ ^{*} $ 3 Figures in parentheses do not include debt cancellation.

$ ^{*} $ 4 “Multiple countries” refers to assistance encompassing multiple countries such as dispatch of study teams and seminars.
## (3) Collaboration between the Government and Implementing Organizations

MOFA works with aid implementing agencies so that the results of the Overseas Economic Cooperation Council and the Priority Policies in International Cooperation, which are created annually by MOfA, can be reflected in the prompt implementation of assistance.

In October 2008, the former JICA, which carried out technical cooperation and promotion of executing grant aid, merged with the Overseas Economic Cooperation operation in the former Japan Bank for International

## (4) Enhancing Policy Consultation

Japan holds close policy dialogue with developing countries and works to share mutual awareness and understanding in order to provide more effective development aid. While Japan still implements ODA by placing emphasis on requests from developing countries from the perspective of supporting their self-help efforts,

## (5) Enhancing Functions at the Field Level

In order to enhance policy dialogue conducted with the governments of developing countries, country-based ODA Task Forces (ODA-TFs) made up of overseas diplomatic missions and local JICA offices have been established in many developing countries. ODA-TFs fulfill a wide range of roles in addition to clarifying the needs of each recipient country. These roles include participating in the formulation of assistance policies like Country Assistance Plans and Rolling Plans, holding policy consultations with the governments of developing countries, working together with developing countries and multilateral organizations, offering suggestions on possible collaborations and reviews of aid schemes, and Cooperation (JBIC), which was in charge of providing ODA loans, to establish the new JICA. Some of the actual implementation duties for grant aid that had previously belonged to MOFA were also transferred to the new JICA. This made the new JICA a comprehensive aid implementing organization that can operate the three aid schemes (technical cooperation, grant aid, and ODA loan) in an integrated fashion.

it carries out policy consultations with governmental parties from the partner country, at a stage prior to the receipt of a request. The aim of these consultations is to allow the developing countries' development policies and assistance needs to be clearly ascertained and to achieve coordination with Japan's assistance policies.

engaging in the formation and selection of candidate assistance projects.

In addition, aid coordination is gaining momentum at the local level in accordance with the drafting and revising of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). Since FY2006, Japan has posted coordinators for economic cooperation at overseas diplomatic missions to provide a system for collecting information and implementing studies relating to aid coordination, as well as for providing a place for disseminating information overseas concerning Japan’s aid policies and making relevant recommendations.
Chart III-19 List of Country Assistance Programs and Countries with Country-based ODA Task Forces

Country Assistance Programs (As of October 2010)

East Asia	● Indonesia	Nov. 2004
● Cambodia	Feb. 2002	under revision
● Thailand	Mar. 2000	May 2006
● China	Oct. 2001
● Philippines	Aug. 2000	Jun. 2008
● Viet Nam	Apr. 2004	Jul. 2009
● Malaysia	Feb. 2002	Apr. 2009
● Mongolia	Nov. 2004	under revision
● Laos	Sep. 2006
South Asia	● India	May. 2006
● Sri Lanka	Apr. 2004	under revision
● Pakistan	Feb. 2005
● Bangladesh	Mar. 2000	May 2006
Central Asia and the Caucasus	● Uzbekistan	Sep. 2006
● Kazakhstan	Sep. 2006
● Kyrgyz	Apr. 2009
● Tajikistan	Apr. 2009
Africa	● Ethiopia	Jun. 2008
● Ghana	Jun. 2000	Sep. 2006
● Kenya	Aug. 2000	under revision
● Zambia	Oct. 2002
● Senegal	Apr. 2009
● Tanzania	Jun. 2000	Jun. 2008
● Uganda	under formulation
● Madagascar	under formulation
Middle East	● Egypt	Jun. 2000	Jun. 2008
● Tunisia	Oct. 2002	under revision
● Jordan	under formulation
● Morocco	under formulation
Latin America and the Caribbean	● Nicaragua	Oct. 2002	under revision
● Peru	Aug. 2000	under revision
● Bolivia	Apr. 2009

Countries with Country-based ODA Task Forces

Europe	Bulgaria	Romania	Total: 2 countries
Middle East	Afghanistan	Yemen	Iran
Syria	Tunisia	Turkey
Morocco	Jordan
Total: 10 countries
Africa	Angola	Uganda	Ethiopia
Côte d'Ivoire	Democratic Republic of the Congo	Zambia
Zimbabwe	Sudan	Senegal
Botswana	Madagascar	Malawi
Mozambique	Rwanda*	Total: 20 countries
Asia	India	Indonesia	Uzbekistan
Kyrgyz	Sri Lanka	Thailand
Nepal	Pakistan	Bangladesh
Bhutan*	Viet Nam	Malaysia
Laos	Total: 21 countries
Oceania	Kiribati*	Samoa*	Solomon Islands
Nauru*	Vanuatu*	Papua New Guinea
Total: 9 countries
Latin America and the Caribbean	Argentina	Ecuador	El Salvador
Costa Rica	Colombia	Chile
Nicaragua	Panama	Paraguay
Peru	Bolivia	Honduras
Mexico	Uruguay
Total: 18 countries

Total: 79 countries ( $ ^{*} $ including countries under shared jurisdiction)
developing countries have been garnering attention in recent years. Also, the Base of the Pyramid (BOP) business aims to develop businesses targeted at those in poverty and contribute to improving their lives as well as to resolving social challenges. Japan is carrying out

## (ii) Smooth Implementation of ODA Loans

Private-public cooperation is widely recognized as necessary for development assistance to developing countries, and it is important to smoothly produce development effects through effectively organized assistance composed of ODA loans and private-sector businesses. From the perspective of facilitating private-public cooperation as well, it is necessary to promote the smooth implementation of ODA loans.

Japan takes into account the need for ensuring accountability and appropriate procedures through such means as ownership on the part of indebted countries, the

## (c) Collaboration with Academia and Local Governments

Japan utilizes the know-how accumulated by academia and local government to implement ODA more effectively. In order to make use of the intellectual assets of universities, JICA concludes contracts with universities to implement comprehensive technical cooperation and promote ODA loan projects. For universities, partnering with JICA allows them easier new initiatives such as utilizing the Grant Assistance for Grassroots Human Security Projects in cases where CSR and BOP business are carried out by enterprises in cooperation with local NGOs.

prevention of fraud and corruption, and environmental and social considerations, and adheres to its 2007 Speed Up of ODA Loans Project and the 2009 Speed Up of ODA Loan Projects by Expediting Government-Industry Coordination. Based on these, Japan announced a Speed Up of ODA Loans Project in July 2010. This stipulated additional measures, such as the early detection of problems and the implementation of countermeasures by means of introducing declarations of pledges at an early stage (pre-pledges) and strengthening on-site monitoring meetings.

access to sites in developing nations and the benefit of being able to acquire practical experience. In addition, JICA also collaborates with local governments in various areas such as qualitative project improvement, development of human resources for assistance, and vitalization of regional project deployment.

## (d) Collaboration with Local Governments and NGOs of Developing Countries

Working together with local governments and NGOs in developing countries is not only beneficial to the socioeconomic development of the developing nation, but also leads to strengthening the civil society and NGOs in the country. Japan utilizes mainly Grant Assistance for Grassroots Human Security Projects to provide assistance for socioeconomic development projects implemented by these aid-related personnel. This financial cooperation is evaluated highly even in developing nations as a detailed and fast form of assistance that provides direct benefits at the grassroots level.

Giving instructions on medical services for children to local staff members in Cambodia (Photo: Services for the Health in Asian & African Regions (SHARE)).
practical experience in developing countries, while an Associate Specialist system has also been established in aiming to cultivate youth that possess a certain degree of expertise despite having little experience. In October 2008, the JICA Research Institute was established, where empirical and policy research is promoted based on the internationally-prevailing methodology while keeping in mind the message to the governments of developing countries and the international assistance community.

The Institute of Developing Economies of the

## (3) Development Education

Development education and issues faced by developing countries are taught as part of the learning objectives for the Period for Integrated Study, a course implemented nationwide at schools of all three levels of elementary, junior high, and senior high school. In order to promote development education, MOFA has a variety of proactive efforts in place. For instance, it launched a webpage to promote development education in compulsory education at elementary and junior high schools, “Tanken Shiyo! Minna no Chikyu (Let’s Explore Our Planet)” on its own website, while video and other materials are often provided on the Plaza for International Cooperation.

## (4) Information Disclosure and Transmission

As the financial resource for ODA is taxpayers' money, Japan is working to ensure transparency and to disclose and transmit information.

Japan External Trade Organization (IDE-JETRO) conducts research on the politics, economies, and societies of developing nations together with mainly researchers, including specialists from Japanese and overseas universities as well as other research institutes. Furthermore, the Institute of Developing Economies Advanced School (IDEAS) of JETRO was established for Japanese and foreigners to provide training aimed at developing highly-skilled development experts, so as to contribute to the economic and social development of developing countries.

website. Since FY2003, the Global Education Contest (Note 39) has also been held, whereupon teaching materials for development education are gathered.

JICA, too, has conducted efforts. For example, in response to the requests of local governments that promote regional internationalization and from schools themselves, former JOCVs are sent to schools to deliver lectures on international cooperation, and essay contests and so on are held targeting junior and senior high school students across the country. The Practical Development Education Seminar is also being implemented.
## (1) Enhancement of Evaluation

In order to implement ODA more effectively and efficiently, it is important to get accurate knowledge and improve the aid implementation process and its effects. To this end, the relevant ministries and agencies including MOFA as well as implementing agencies such as JICA conduct monitoring and evaluation.

ODA evaluation is positioned in the framework of the PDCA Cycle (Plan Do Check Act). The lessons and advice received from the evaluation results are conveyed to the departments in charge and the governments of aid-receiving countries, so as to be reflected (provide feedback for) the process of formulating and implementing ODA policy. In addition, it is necessary to explain to citizens how ODA is used and what effects were achieved. Thus, the government posts ODA evaluations on the Internet in order to fulfill its accountability to the public.

Currently, evaluations conducted by MOFA focus particularly on policy-level evaluations (country policy evaluations and priority issue evaluations), while program-level evaluations (aid scheme evaluations) and project-level evaluations are performed by JICA.

In regards to MOfA’s policy-level evaluations and program-level evaluations, evaluations are conducted from the perspectives of the relevance of the policy, the effectiveness of the results, and the appropriateness of the process. To guarantee the objectivity and transparency of the evaluations, third-party evaluations are carried out. Since FY2004 the conduct of evaluations had been commissioned to the Advisory Meeting on ODA Evaluation, but as of FY2009 this meeting has been temporarily suspended in order to examine more effective modalities for ODA evaluations.

Regarding the project-level evaluations and theme evaluations performed by JICA, on the other hand, evaluations of the three aid schemes of loan aid, technical cooperation, and grant aid (which were added beginning in FY2009) have been carried out in the wake of the launch of the new JICA in October 2008. Hereafter, consistent evaluations will be conducted spanning from the preliminary stage of each project through to the implementation and ex-post stages, and a consistent evaluation mechanism is being set in place for the three aid schemes. These evaluations are conducted from the perspectives of relevance, effectiveness (impact), efficiency, and sustainability, with external evaluations conducted for the ex-post evaluations.

Aside from these, MOFA also conducts policy evaluations concerning economic cooperation policies in general, pre-evaluations on projects that exceed a certain amount of money, and ex-post evaluations on projects that have not begun after five years and those that have not concluded after ten years (Note 43). These are carried out pursuant to the Government Policy Evaluations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Policy Evaluations Act).

Respective follow-ups are performed for both the advice and lessons obtained from these evaluations, and these are reflected in the planning and implementation of new projects.

>> See Part 1, Chapter 2 regarding reviews of ODA evaluations.
## 第 4 重大事犯少年の意識

## 1 調査実施方法及び分析対象者

重大事犯少年の意識に関しては，少年院及び少年刑務所に収容された調査対象者に対する意識調査を基に分析を行った。調査の実施方法は，少年院及び少年刑務所に依頼し，調査票を用いて，調査対象者に対して原則として個別の方式で実施して回収した。ただし，調査を受けることを拒否する者及び心身等の状態により調査を受けることが適当でない者については，調査対象から除いた。調査票の質問項目は21項目であり，調査票（「非行に関する意識調査票」）及び回答の単純集計表は巻末の資料を参照されたい。

意識調査の対象者は，調査対象者278人のうち，平成17年2月の時点で少年院又は刑務所に収容中で，意識調査が可能であった138人（以下「意識調査対象者」という。）である。

意識調査対象者を男女別で見ると，男子132人（95.7%），女子6人（4.3%）であり，女子は，すべて少年院在院中であった。非行名・罪名別及び非行類型別に見た意識調査対象者は，表4－1－1のとおりである。

非行名・罪名別では，少年院及び刑務所のいずれでも，傷害致死の比率が最も高かった。他方，危険運転致死は，すべて刑務所在所中であった。非行類型別では，交通型はすべて刑務所在所中であり，家族型は少年院在院中の者の比率が高かった。なお，少年院在院者の少年院入院の日から調査日までの期間は，平均619日，刑務所在所者の刑確定日から調査日までの期間は，平均645日であった。

① 非行名·罪名别

表 4－1－1 意識調查対象者

非行名·罪名	少年院	刑務所	計
総 数	40	98	138
(100.0)	(100.0)	(100.0)
殺 人	8	14	22
(20.0)	(14.3)	(15.9)
強 盜 致 死	9	11	20
(22.5)	(11.2)	(14.5)
傷 害 致 死	23	61	84
(57.5)	(62.2)	(60.9)
危險運転致死	-	12	12
(12.2)	(8.7)

注（）内は，構成比である。

② 非行類型別

非行類型	少年院	刑務所	計
総数	40	98	138
(100.0)	(100.0)	(100.0)
集団型	33	77	110
(82.5)	(78.6)	(79.7)
単独型	2	7	9
(5.0)	(7.1)	(6.5)
家族型	5	2	7
(12.5)	(2.0)	(5.1)
交通型	-	12	12
(12.2)	(8.7)

## 2 事件及び処分に対する認識

事件の動機に関する認識について,「今回の事件は,どんな理由で起こしてしまったと考えていますか」と質問した。事件の動機に関する認識は,図4-2-1のとおりである。

非行名別に見ると，殺人は，「かっとなった」(56.5%)及び「どうしていいかわからなくなっていた」(47.8%)と認識している者の比率が高く，感情の爆発又は混乱によって殺人に至った者が多いことがうかがわれる。強盗致死は，「お金がほしかった」(35.0%)と認識している者の比率よりも，「人に誘われた」(70.0%)及び「どうしていいかわからなくなっていた」(50.0%)と認識している者の比率が高かつ
た。傷害致死は，「調子に乗りすぎていた」(69.9%)及び「かっとなった」(56.6%)と認識している者の比率が高く，危険運転致死のほとんどの者が「調子に乗りすぎていた」(75.0%)と認識していた。

非行類型別に見ると，集団型は，「調子に乗りすぎていた」(59.1%)，「かっとなった」(51.8%)及び「人に誘われた」(40.0%)と認識している者の比率が高く，集団的雰囲気に乗って，ささいなきっかけで感情が爆発したと認識している者が多いことがうかがわれる。単独型は，「かっとなった」(44.4%)，「どうしていいかわからなくなっていた」(44.4%)，「調子に乗りすぎていた」(33.3%)，「いやなことから逃げ出したかった」(33.3%)など，多くの項目に回答が分散しており，様々な理由で重大事犯に至っていることがうかがわれる。家族型では「どうしていいかわからなくなっていた」(71.4%)及び「いやなことから逃げ出したかった」(71.4%)と認識している者の比率が高く，混乱した心理状況の中で重大事犯に至った者が多いことがうかがわれる。交通型のほとんどの者が，「調子に乗りすぎていた」(75.0%)と認識しており，高揚した気分の中で，交通法規を無視した運転によって重大事犯に至ったと認識している者がほとんどであることがうかがわれる。

図4－2－1 事件の動機に関する認識

注 上限のない複数回答である。

事件の重大性の認識について，「今回の事件をどのように受け止めていますか」と質問したところ，133人（96.4%）が「重大なものと受け止めている」と回答した。他方，「重大なものと受け止めていない」と回答した4人について見ると，1人が医療少年院在院中で，3人が刑務所在所中であった。なお，1人が無回答であった。

事件を重大と受け止めていると回答した者に対してのみ，重大性の認識の時期について，「初めて重大と受け止めたのはいつですか」と質問した。本件を重大であると認識した時期は，図4－2－2のとおりである。

少年院在院者（起訴された後，地方裁判所から家庭裁判所に移送された者を除く。）では，事件直後及び少年院在院中に初めて重大であると認識した者の比率が他の時期と比較して高かった。少年院在院中の比率が他の時期と比較して高いことから，少年院における処遇の効果がうかがわれる。他方，刑務所