This hearing offers a window into the cyclical and self-defeating nature of carceral logic, particularly for people seeking to exit patterns of substance use and incarceration. Even as the defendant has overcome systemic barriers, the system remains structured to punish him for past actions. Though he meets the standards of what the court considers as “rehabilitation”, he is harshly punished. Ultimately, the criminal system claims to rehabilitate people while actively undermining people’s ability to transform their conditions.

A class of police academy students are observing this hearing as part of their training. The police-in-training ask questions before the start of the trial and the judge provides some background information, including that the defendant had been assigned a public defender after violating probation. When the defendant and his lawyer enter the courtroom, their relationship does not appear close and it is unclear whether they have talked to each other beforehand.

The judge asks for the defendant’s personal details. The man confirms that he holds German citizenship, information which the judge does not find on file. His defense lawyer speculates he may hold dual nationality, to which the judge responds that she does not care about other citizenships in this case. If he holds German citizenship, “then the immigration office should not be concerned here anymore.”

The court asks the defendant about his income and whether he has any care responsibilities. The man states that he is married with two small kids. He is currently training for a new profession for which he receives some pay.

The court reads out the charge, which concerns the theft of prepared food and cans of alcoholic drinks. The defendant explains the circumstances under which this happened, stating he was heavily intoxicated at the time and does not remember many details of the incident as a result. After serving a prison sentence in another state, his alcohol use worsened. Just days before the theft, he lost access to housing and was sleeping rough when the theft occurred. Three days later, he checked himself into a detox program and has remained sober since.

The judge reviews the police report, noting that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was very high, and proceeds to show stills from the CCTV footage at the supermarket. The man identifies himself in the footage and adds: “This is someone else to me now, I don’t recognize this man.”

The judge asks about the man’s current situation. He confirms that he lives with his wife and children again, now that he is sober. The lawyer interjects to say that this makes the situation all the more unfortunate, since the defendant still faces trial in another state for violating probation. The judge simply replies: “I can’t do anything about that.”

According to the prosecutor, the defendant seems on the right path and has reduced culpability because of his alcohol use at the time of the offense. Nevertheless she demands a fine of over 1,000€.

The defense attorney makes a motion to acquit his client, suggesting that due to his intoxication, his client should not be considered culpable at all at the time of the offense. The judge scolds the lawyer for not raising this argument in advance, says the conditions for this standard are clearly unmet, and warns him that the required forensic report would have high costs which the defendant would have to pay himself if not acquitted. The defense lawyer insists on pursuing this motion anyway. The judge closes the evidence and retreats to deliberate over a sentence.

Two minutes later, the judge returns visibly angry. She slams her stack of files on the desk and tells everyone to sit back down. She explains she cannot reach a verdict yet given the defense’s request for assessing legal incapacity, and that she must now properly investigate further. She states again that a proper forensic report would cost the defendant thousands of euros and that she thinks that they stand no chance at winning this argument because of the video evidence. Seemingly swayed by the judge’s strong reaction, the defense lawyer turns to the defendant and asks what he thinks, and whether they should move ahead with this strategy or submit a different closing argument. The defendant appears unsure and overwhelmed.

After some back and forth between the defendant and his lawyer, they withdraw the motion. The judge has to prompt the lawyer to offer a closing statement, which he delivers half-heartedly. The defendant is asked to speak last, but the lawyer repeatedly interjects and talks over him, seemingly still attempting to justify why he entered the request for an acquittal. The judge therefore has to call on the defendant to make his last statement multiple times. The defendant closes by saying, “Look, I’m sorry. I want to get my life in order. I just don’t want to go to jail again.”

When the judge leaves to deliberate, the lawyer leans over to the defendant and says, “They’ll just put you straight back in open prison.” Instead, the court sentences him to a fine almost half of the prosecution’s ask. The judge says she lowered the daily rate out of consideration for the defendant’s children and what she views as the credible steps he has taken toward recovery. She says that she recognizes his efforts to seek treatment before any legal pressure was applied. She adds that she can understand the defendant’s fear of an upcoming criminal trial in another state, as the courts there are much harsher on drug-related charges. But as the parties leave the courtroom, she adds, “Those are the consequences of committing a crime. You should have thought of that at the time.”