Ten Questions You Always Wanted to Ask a Judge

This article originally appeared on VICE Germany

"You're late," Judge Andreas Müller said, welcoming me into his home in Glienicke, a town just north of Berlin. "If you'd been on time, I would have made you some breakfast, you brat." Müller's conviction that actions have consequences is no surprise for a man who was once described by German newspaper Bild as "Germany's harshest judge on youth offences".

"I've worked hard to earn that title," the 56-year-old told me with a smile as we sat down at his kitchen table. "If the boys in this area are afraid to face me, then I've done my job," he added. Müller has been a judge in Bernau bei Berlin's district court for 20 years – an area that's home to a large community of neo-Nazis. Müller is known for coming down hard on them but in dealing with the issue, he's also come up with some very unconventional sentences – like forcing neo-Nazis to visit mosques or eat kebabs with Turkish youths. "I was the most hated judge among the far-right," he said. "I'm still proud of that to this day."

He told me that he's less actively fighting right-wing extremism these days, but holds a different cause close to his heart – cannabis legalisation. In 2015, he published his second book, entitled Weed and Criminality. In it, he argues that in order for authorities to be able to protect young people instead of prosecuting them, cannabis needs to be legalised.

I spoke with the judge to find out about the verdicts he's regretted over the years and the worst evidence he's been forced to review during a case

VICE: Have you ever lost sleep over deciding on a verdict?
Andreas Müller: Yes, before making some decisions I'm up all night, sitting in my kitchen and thinking about the next day's verdict. Should I let the defendant go or send him to prison? Should an 18-year-old neo-Nazi be behind bars so everyone knows that throwing petrol bombs at asylum seekers has consequences? But isn't that going to destroy the boy's life?

It might be better for the community, but he could lose his job or forever be branded as a criminal – even if he's just a follower of the herd. These sort of decisions still trouble me, even after 25 years as a judge. My decisions can have a lasting effect on the lives of these people.

How often have you given a wrong verdict?
I'm sure that I've gotten some wrong – I just don't always know in which cases. Once, I sent someone I strongly suspected to be a rapist to prison on remand for nine months. In the end, he was released after a comprehensive review of the evidence. For the man in question, being unjustly imprisoned was awful, but judges are only human. Lawmakers know that as well, that's why there are laws granting compensation to people who have suffered from a mistake on our part.

Do you ever hate the criminals appearing before you?
No, that's something I can't do. Of course having feelings is what makes us human – without our emotions, you might as well replace us with machines. Someone could just enter the details of the case into a machine and have it spit out "guilty" or "not guilty" and then set the sentence. Some cases do make me angry – especially when you're dealing with a child who's been sexually abused, or when a victim has been traumatised for life and the perpetrator shows no empathy at all. My personal feelings never affect the verdict, though.

Is there one case that has affected you the most?
Lots of cases remain with me, particularly those where the victims are still suffering to this day. But what happens to the people I've sentenced sometimes stays with me too. As a young judge, I released a man from prison with a penalty fine – two weeks later he killed someone. I just sat in my judge's chambers and cried like a little boy. But it's an occupational hazard. No judge can perfectly see through the facade of a defendant, we can only see what we're shown. I'm sure it's the same for a doctor – when one of their first patients dies, some might cry too. But after a while you realise that it's part of the job.

What was the worst piece of evidence you were forced to see?
In one trial, I had to watch a married couple's sex tape. The worst thing about it was that the parents forced their young daughter, who the father was abusing, to film it. The girl later committed suicide.

Because I deal with cases involving young people, I have to see the evidence in child pornography trials. I hate that. And if there's a murder, you also can't just skip the coroner's report.

Watch: 10 Questions You Always Wanted to Ask a Flat-Earther

Is everyone equal before the law?
No, I don't think so. Especially in criminal law, the little man hangs and the big man walks free. A homeless person who steals a bottle of cheap booze ten times – which in total may be worth €5- – is locked up, the same goes for people riding the train without a ticket. We punish mothers who, on their small budget, have to choose between buying a train ticket and an ice cream for their child. On the other hand, there are tax evaders and fraudsters who cost the public millions, and they get off too easy, in my opinion. A poor man can end up in jail for a €50 crime because he can't afford an expensive lawyer. That's why I'm not satisfied with our legal system.

Is there any sort of criminal you consider more favourably?
I'm sympathetic towards people who faced morally difficult decisions. Once, a guy stuck up a bank with a toy gun and demanded €165 (£148). I asked him why he did it and he told me he had promised his son a Playstation – it was two weeks before Christmas. Of course that gets to you, emotionally. At the same time, though, I had to think of the bank worker who was frightened to death at the time. I ended up giving the man probation.

In another case, a mother drove her anorexic daughter to The Netherlands to smoke weed, because she wanted her to eat lots of chocolate. She had committed a crime under German law, but at the time, I had more sympathy towards the mother than the law.

Do your political beliefs influence your verdicts?
No, but my moral beliefs do play a role. If, like me, you're a supporter of legalising cannabis, you can use the law to protect cannabis users. If you have suffered violence yourself, you might be harsher on violent criminals. If you've had your bike stolen three times in the last six weeks, you might give the next bike thief a harsher punishment. However, for me, politics doesn't play a role. I treat anti-capitalist rioters in the same way I treat far-right rioters.

Do funny things ever happen in court?
Yes, I do get to laugh a lot. It just doesn't happen with serious matters, like when there are children involved, or there's a possibility of a long prison term.

The funniest incident I remember was when I decided to ban combat boots in my courtroom. I had a member of the NPD (Germany's neo-Nazi party) in as a witness and I just told him that combat boots symbolised the far-right, violence and anti-foreigner sentiments. I gave him an hour to change into something else. When he came back, the guy had to stand before me with just socks under full uniform. I stayed cool until I was back in my chambers, but then I couldn't stop laughing.

What do you wear under your robe?
What would you like to hear from me, that I wear stockings and suspenders? I wear jeans. You can usually wear whatever you like under the robe. If I had a special fetish, I could wear that. I know of one female lawyer who deliberately wears suspenders in court. It's just one way to defend your clients.