There has been an ongoing push by the state to make the criminal legal system more “efficient” by reducing or eliminating procedural protections, for example by proposing to widen the scope of cases eligible for sentencing via summary proceedings (Strafbefehl). This trend has to be read alongside a seemingly contradictory reality that sometimes the state is willing to expend enormous resources to punish – making a point of disciplining and humiliation.

In this case, the defendant is serving time in prison, where a small quantity of cannabis was found on him. The case takes place against the backdrop of impending legislation to legalize cannabis possession, up to 25g in public. In this case, the person has less than 1/10th of this quantity. Even prior to the new legislation, Berlin’s prosecution had a standing policy under which they declined to prosecute possession under 15 grams.

The person is brought before the court for cannabis possession anyway. It’s worth noting that transporting people held in prison for court hearings is usually expensive and logistically complex. In court, the person faces additional humiliation and disrespect: For example, his lawyer and the judge discuss in front of him about why he has not yet been deported. At the end of this ordeal, he is sentenced to pay €30.

The defendant is transported from prison to the court. We learn that he is serving a medium-length sentence and is a construction worker by training. He’s been working in prison as well, though not over the last three months.

The prosecutor details that the person is being accused of possessing approximately two grams of cannabis in prison. His lawyer clarifies that he had the drugs for his own consumption and that he has at some point received treatment. After the court asks some more questions about the person’s background, the lawyer adds that he has not yet been deported because of obstacles to doing so. It is unclear why the lawyer raises this.

The court turns to asking the person detailed questions about his drug use history. The prosecutor asks why the defendant stopped working in prison a few months ago, to which he replies that he wants to continue working.

The prosecutor asks for a sentence of €60, noting it’s positive that the defendant confessed and the amount of cannabis was low but that his prior record speaks against him. His lawyer agrees with the prosecutor’s reasoning and only advocates for a lower fine. When the judge returns from deliberations, he sentences the man to a fine of €30. The court does not add much to the arguments provided by the prosecutor for the sentence.