在欧洲及其他地区,再犯统计对于犯罪学研究的开展、司法裁判的作出以及刑事政策的制定均具有重要意义。一般而言,现代以实证为基础的刑事政策的制定普遍以减少再犯为目标;刑事法庭则日益要求必须以犯罪嫌疑人的再犯可能性所表现出的人身危险性为基础,作出有针对性的判决。无论是刑事政策的制定,还是刑事审判的作出,都需要参考具有实质性和可靠性的信息和数据。但是,仅仅依靠官方机构(例如德国)提供的原始数据作出刑事审判,并试图达到预防再犯发生的效果,可以说这几乎是一个不可能完成的任务;与此同时,通过具体的调查研究而获取的再犯数据并不具有普遍适用性,原因在于这些数据基本都是在特定情形下采用特定的统计方法获取的。再犯数据的潜在价值应当得到强调和重视,然而到目前为止,数据统计的常规路径和统计程度的应然标准仍处于缺位状态。从德国的情况来看,日趋严格的隐私和数据保护政策已经成为阻碍、甚至是禁止对非整体性数据进行纵向记录的因素。这些保护政策也与犯罪学家、政策制定者对于可供获取的个性化信息的准确性要求背道而驰。 In Europe and elsewhere, recidivism is of great importance to the development of criminological research, the making of judicial decisions and the formulation of criminal policies. In general, the development of modern evidence-based criminal policies generally targets reduction of recidivism; criminal courts are increasingly demanding that targeted criminal justice be based on the personal danger of the suspect’s recidivism judgment. Both the formulation of criminal policy and the making of criminal judgments require reference to substantive and reliable information and data. However, it is almost an impossible task to rely solely on the raw data provided by official agencies (eg Germany) to make criminal trials and to try to achieve the effect of preventing recidivism; at the same time, through specific investigations and studies The recidivism data is not universally applicable because these data are basically obtained using specific statistical methods under certain circumstances. The potential value of recidivism should be emphasized and valued, however, so far, the normal path of statistical data and the standard of statistical level are still missing. From Germany’s perspective, increasingly stringent privacy and data protection policies have become a hindrance and even a deterrent to the vertical recording of non-unitary data. These protection policies also run counter to the needs of criminologists and policymakers for the accuracy of the personalized information available.