A person is sentenced to seven months in prison at a hearing lasting only 15 minutes at the Schnellgericht, where people have fewer procedural rights than in a proper trial. In violation of rights he does have, he is not even provided an interpreter despite clear evidence he did not understand the proceedings.

In addition to these procedural problems, we learn a lot in this case about the cynical way in which courts respond to people who use drugs. The end effect of the court’s approach is that it is able to sidestep complex realities including that drug use is about personal choice as well as systemic socioeconomic injustice, and that as a society we have very few community-based options for people who may want support with their drug use. The court does this with two somewhat contradictory moves that both mean that people with drugs are more harshly sentenced. First, the court assesses the person to have what is called a poor social prognosis. This is essentially a character analysis courts do to determine the severity of a sentence. In this case, the court bases their prognosis on the person’s drug use, leading the court to reject a probation sentence in favor of prison. Second, despite their negative judgement of the person’s character, the court performs interest in the person’s well-being by leaning into the suggestion that prison will be positive because the person can receive treatment there. In the end all roads lead to prison, despite clear evidence that prison does not solve but rather creates more harm.

The hearing begins with informal negotiations between the judge and a lawyer representing the defendant, who is being brought from detention. He was arrested three days ago and has been jailed since. The defense lawyer suggests a sentence of 6–7 months in prison. He reports that his client is in drug substitution therapy in pretrial detention and intends to continue therapy in prison. The negotiations are inconclusive and the trial proceeds.

Two sheriffs bring in the defendant, who appears anxious and confused and has visible injuries. His limited German becomes immediately apparent. When asked basic questions, he turns to the lawyer and court staff in confusion. Although it is clear that he does not understand the proceedings, an interpreter is not present and the trial is not interrupted to call one. The judge asks the defendant if he speaks German, to which his lawyer answers yes. The defendant adds, “ein bisschen” (a little”), then switches to a mix of English and German. The hearing continues in German.

The man is charged with aggravated theft for allegedly stealing coffee and detergent with a total value of just over €50. His attorney explains that his client stole because he needed money because of his substance use issues and reminds the court that his client is in drug substitution treatment. He also says his client regrets his actions. The judge asks about income—the defendant has none—and whether he is married, a question the defendant is unable to understand. After his lawyer translates (which he has not been doing all along), raising his voice to ask, “Married?”, the defendant responds, “No, not married.”

The judge reads aloud from the defendant’s criminal record which contains past convictions, mostly for theft. The judge suggests the defendant resumed using drugs and stealing shortly after being released from prison for a past offense.

Moving on to sentencing recommendations, the prosecutor argues for a 7-month prison sentence, citing the confession and the low value of the stolen goods as mitigating factors, but arguing that the repeated nature of the offenses and the failure of previous punishments to deter the defendant suggest he must be jailed. The prosecution considers him unsuitable for probation because he does not, according to the prosecutor, have a permanent address or social ties in Germany.

The defence lawyer responds by contrasting the man’s behaviour with and without drugs. “With drugs he is a bad boy (böser Bube), without drugs he is good,” he says, requesting a sentence only one month shorter than the prosecution. He argues for a six-month prison sentence—seemingly so that his client can receive drug treatment in prison.

The defendant attempts to address the court in fragmented English and German, apologizing and promising to participate in a substitution program, get his documents in order, and work to live a “normal life”. His statement is largely ignored. Without deliberation, the judge sentences the defendant to seven months in prison, echoing the prosecutor’s reasoning. She asks whether the defendant will appeal. The lawyer answers on his behalf that he will not. The court does not confirm with the defendant that he understands the sentence or that he waived his right to appeal.

The hearing ends abruptly. The defendant appears unsure where he is supposed to go or what he is supposed to do next. He turns to court officers for guidance. The lawyer tells him to go to the pretrial detention prison to collect his belongings and that he will return at a later date to serve his prison sentence. The man’s means of complying with this instruction—given his lack of money and identification—are not discussed in court. The lawyer warns him, almost jokingly, to buy a train ticket: “Riding [the train] without is a crime too.”