This research examines why social capital has been neglected in the context of community crime prevention from three perspectives. First, the viewpoint of the trends of criminology and criminal policy, the research found that interests have been shifted to the explication of the mechanism as the concept of high-crime areas was taken for granted. The reinforcement of the policy against recidivism has weakened the interest of community crime prevention itself. Second, the examination of social capital research has revealed the following: the coverage of social capital to the understanding of community is only a part of the whole; therefore, the concept of social capital has not explained community crime prevention adequately. Third, research has been complicated by the conflict over definitions of social capital. Finally, the possibility of critical realism was referred to overcome the limitations of social capital studies.

This study aims to discuss the current status and prospects of social surveys on communities and crime in Japan. First, the author reviewed communities and crime research in six cities in Australia, China, South Korea, and the United States in terms of theoretical background, sampling method, and types of statistical analysis. Second, 24 empirical studies in Japan since 1970 were also coded in the same manner. Based on a comparison between Japan and abroad, the author argued about sample size, sampling design, and analytical methods of Japanese surveys for improvement. Finally, the author discusses future prospects including the use of open data and collaboration between police and academia.

This paper examines contemporary implications of the studies on “communities and crime” in the United States. It undertakes this examination based on the presentation and discussions at the symposium of the 46th. annual meeting of the Japanese Association of Sociological Criminology, and by recounting the issues from the viewpoint of “overt crime areas,” proposed by Felson and Eckert (2018) . Their arguments on overt crime areas are characteristic in aspects such as the distinction between “overt” and “covert” crime, as well as crime and disorder, and the notion of tough neighborhoods, which are taken over by overt crime and public disorder, as “enhancers,” not “causes,” of crime. Although their arguments are highly consistent with findings in recent studies on communities and crime, and societal changes after the mid-1970s, in the United States, extra caution is necessary when applied to contemporary Japan as an analytical frame of reference.

It is often said that “community” has recently gained its presence as an essential actor in the field of governing crime. This type of narrative is strongly supported in the historical understanding such as “from ‘governing through the social’ to ‘governing through community’.” In the first half of this article, I question the narrative and call attention to the fact that community has long been significant in governing crime since the era of welfare state. To this end, I look back on the development of community organization approaches such as the “Chicago Area Project (CAP)” and the “Mobilization for Youth (MFY).” Both approaches ended up in failure in “socialization of government:” a way of governing crime not by social inclusion of ex-offenders through transforming themselves but by solving the social structural oppressions, discriminations, and inequalities through transforming society as a whole. Moreover, community-based organizations placed under neo-liberal and neo-conservative conditions of “governing through community” have recently been responsibilized to support ex-offenders who are in the process of desistance from crime as responsibilized subjects. Under such circumstances of “responsibilized responsibilization,” the possibilities that the community contributes to the realization of “socialization of government” seem to become smaller than ever. How can we imagine that “socialization of government” becomes possible in a contemporary world? In the second half of this article, I conduct an exploratory examination of the above question, focusing on three empirical cases from the field of governing crime: therapeutic community, harm reduction, and abolitionism.

Long term prisoners are often forgotten by public as they are in the prison over long periods of time and seldom become a research subject. There were widely shared discussions on the adversary effects, such as psychological deterioration, due to their long-term imprisonment. However, in recent western analyses, questions are raised; even if adversary occurs, would it be the direct result of the long-term imprisonment or it be caused by individual traits that are associated with prisoners before imprisonment? The current analysis tests the impact of the length of imprisonment on prisoners' subjective well-being in a Japanese prison. Different models are produced for prisoners who serve determinate sentence and indeterminate sentence as they are detected different. Although the period of imprisonment has negligible effects on the subjective well-being of for determinant sentence prisoners, it has significant negative effects on prisoners with indeterminate sentence. However, the explanatory power of each model is very small. It suggests length of long-term imprisonment has very limited effects on adaptation of prisoners. It is argued that further research is necessary to follow long-term inmates’ within individual change and to test non-linear relationships among constructs.

In this study, I examined the discourse process of the protection principle of the Juvenile Act of 1948, focusing on the commentary books on the Act. I also analyzed a pre-war juvenile justice practitioners’ “narrative” regarding the post-war juvenile justice system that was eliminated by the construct process of the protection principle of the Act. In addition, by comparing the discourse on the protection principle of the Act and the pre-war juvenile justice practitioners’ “narrative” concerning the post-war juvenile justice system, I confirmed that there is a common understanding that the juvenile justice agency should create social resources to rehabilitate minor boys who commit delinquent acts, in collaboration with related organizations of juvenile justice. But, some pre-war juvenile justice practitioners had criticized the separation of protection decisions and enforcement, saying they wanted the juvenile justice agency personnel to work under a unified system. This opinion differs from the commentary books on the Act. I concluded that the pre-war juvenile justice practitioners’ “narrative” suggests embodying multi-agency cooperation in the current juvenile justice system.

Some crime victims/offenders can often seek restorative justice dialogue outside the existing criminal justice system for mutual satisfaction. In contrast to other countries, Japan lacks such restorative practices and empirical studies. Examining whether restorative practices can prevail and new empirical findings on this can be developed in Japan would require identifying factors relating to the willingness of victims and offenders to engage in dialogue with each other. In this study, college students were required to read a property or violent crime scenario and answer questions about a possible dialogue that could emerge between victim and offender, placing themselves in the mind of each side. From the data analysis of 292 samples, results common to both property and violent crimes showed that, from the victim’s perspective, seeking for forgiveness to the offender and helping his/her rehabilitation heightened the willingness to engage in dialogue with the offender. Furthermore, it was suggested that a convenient, safe, and secure opportunity to meet the offender is important. Meanwhile, from the offender’s perspective, a longing for the case to be closed only by the offender him/herself weakened the willingness to engage in dialogue with the victim. However, it was suggested that the prospect of his/her own recovery through interaction with the victim increase the offender’s willingness to engage in dialogue with them.