To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Volunteer probation officers, who help rehabilitate people who have committed crimes, play an important role in preventing recidivism, and thereby contribute to social stability. The government must create an environment quickly in which they can work with peace of mind.
There are about 46,000 volunteer probation officers nationwide who regularly interview those found guilty but are on probation or who have been released on parole from prison, among others, offering them counsel on their personal lives and work. In many cases, interviews are conducted at the home of the volunteer probation officer, so the warm atmosphere of a home may be felt.
In May this year, however, a male volunteer probation officer was murdered at his home in Otsu, and a man on probation, who was being taken care of by the officer, was arrested.
After the incident, the Justice Ministry conducted a survey of volunteer probation officers nationwide and found that about 20% of respondents felt uneasy about their activities, and 70 officers expressed their intention to quit.
This is a critical situation that could affect whether the system survives. The average age of volunteer probation officers is also now 65, and there is a serious shortage of those who will take on the role. If the safety of volunteer probation officers cannot be guaranteed, then the personnel shortage will likely not be resolved. The system urgently needs to be reviewed.
As measures to ensure the safety of volunteer probation officers, a final report compiled by a ministry study group offers such proposals as securing places for interviews aside from volunteers’ homes, and conducting interviews with more than one volunteer.
Likely candidates for interview sites are the local rehabilitation support centers for offenders that serve as bases of operations for volunteer probation officers. However, some of these are far from the homes of volunteers and those who are interviewed, or they are not available at night or on holidays. It is necessary to increase the number of the centers and review their opening hours.
The Ota Ward government in Tokyo allows the ward office and its facilities to be used for interviews if they are available. The use of community centers in various locations is also worth considering. It is hoped that reasonable methods will be chosen in accordance with local circumstances.
The central government has probation officers who have acquired specialized knowledge in areas such as psychology and pedagogy and help rehabilitate those under their supervision, but currently there are only 1,000 of these officers. Some have pointed out a lack of cooperation between the officers and volunteers, and the ministry is planning to increase the number of professional government probation officers.
If this happens, it should become easier for probation officers to join in interviews and offer counsel to volunteer probation officers online and via other means. It is important that volunteer probation officers not be isolated.
As crimes, including drug-related crimes and cybercrimes, are growing more diverse, the times demand volunteer probation officers have expertise. Solutions will need to be devised, such as appointing more former police officers who have dealt with criminals.
Volunteer probation officers are supported by the spirit of social service. The question of whether the system can be sustained by unpaid volunteers should also continue to be examined.
