> Though I added something I previously excluded for Table 2, which I'm still unable to find in their sources. The source given indeed seems to be incorrect.

> Though I added something I previously excluded for Table 2, which I'm still unable to find in their sources. The source given indeed seems to be incorrect. > No that would be Table 2, not Table 1. Table 1 is about "ex-prisoners" that got convicted of any offense again, not necessarily a prison sentence. Fair enough but that was my mistaken wording, the table in the source still correctly differentiates between conviction and re-imprisonment. In any event, I remain unconvinced that these rates are substantially better compared to the rates in the US, especially considering how difficult these numbers are to compare.