EDITORIAL: Probation officers

The home of a probation officer in Ibaraki Prefecture was burned down last month in a fire started by a 14-year-old boy. The boy had been taken into custody two years ago on suspicion of another arson attack. The latest incident occurred while the officer was working with him.

The case is distressing. The boy relied on his probation officer for support, but he could not fit into society and school. Sources said he wanted to go back to reform school.

How should pyromaniacs or others who need special supervision be dealt with?

Was there sufficient coordination between correctional, educational, welfare and medical professionals? The case seems to leave many questions.

The incident may cause some people to fear becoming probation officers on the grounds that it is dangerous. We should not allow such a feeling to spread.

There are about 48,000 probation officers in Japan. They are all volunteers.

Communicating with parole officers, who are Justice Ministry employees, probation officers support the rehabilitation of people who are released from prison and youths who commit acts of delinquency.

They help them by talking to them on a regular basis, giving advice on everyday life and helping find jobs. Officers put up with disagreeable situations, such as verbal abuse from the people they care for, but serious damage such as in the Ibaraki case is rare.

To former inmates, probation officers are a lifeline. Our understanding is that it is generally felt among offenders that they should not betray their probation officers. Such recognition should be shared by society as a whole.

The government has no measures to compensate for the damage suffered by the probation officer who lost his home. Workers' compensation does not apply to property damage.

It is true that taxes may not be used to cover losses beyond what the law provides, and it is understandable that a balance needs to be maintained with general public employees or support measures for victims of crime.

Still, listing reasons why relief cannot be provided is not enough to win public understanding.

Probation officers are not paid. The government only pays them enough money to cover their expenses. Despite this, it is not uncommon for probation officers to invite people released from prison and reform school to their homes and to serve them meals.

Even though they work for the public good and open up their homes, they get no compensation. This situation is likely to build anxiety and distrust and shake the very foundations of the current arrangement.

We believe it is the duty of the government to provide emergency relief measures, such as the introduction of insurance against damage. For a long time, people are saying, the government has been relying on and taking advantage of the goodwill of volunteer probation officers.

In recent years, budgets have been allocated for increasing the number of parole officers and for organizing meetings of probation officers, where they can share troubles and consult each other. These efforts are, however, insufficient.

There are plans to set up facilities equipped with meeting rooms for the use of people working on rehabilitation and reform. But only 21 of 883 probation officer associations have seen the plans move forward in their areas.

The government and the private sector should cooperate with each other to tackle the prevention of repeat offending and create a society in which we can live comfortably.

This policy may not receive enthusiastic public support. But it is a problem that should be properly tackled by the current administration, which is trying to move toward the establishment of a "New Public Commons."

--The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 13