Benjamin Düsberg, a Berlin-based lawyer specializing in criminal defense, has been nominated for LTO Most Wanted by Maximilian Steinbeis. Düsberg shares his thoughts on the law, justice, and the role of criminal defense in society.
The Difference Between Law and Justice
Düsberg emphasizes the distinction between law and justice. The law, he explains, is a set of enforceable rules, while justice is a moral and political concept. Many laws, according to him, are unjust, and the legal system often upholds inequitable societal structures. However, the law can also reflect hard-won justice, incorporating insights from moral and political struggles. Düsberg highlights that the political goal should be to align law and justice as closely as possible, a perspective that drives his work in criminal defense, where he sees the law’s dual potential to oppress and liberate.
Criminal Defense: A Vital and Diverse Practice
Düsberg considers criminal defense a vital and diverse field, finding it deeply rewarding. He rarely finds aspects of the job he dislikes. One case that stands out involves the “Ulm 5”, five young people who damaged a weapons factory and prevented the production of weapons of war, thereby saving lives. Despite their actions, they have been in pre-trial detention for over 13 months.
Düsberg is troubled by how the Stuttgart Regional Court has handled the case, stating that it disregards the European Court of Human Rights by confining the defendants in glass cells, isolating them from their lawyers and the courtroom. The court has also refused to consider the defense’s central argument of justifying the action based on emergency assistance and state of necessity. This refusal ignores the broader context of how the technology produced in Ulm enables and facilitates crimes.
The Need for Legal Reform
Düsberg advocates for significant reforms in German criminal procedure, particularly regarding the documentation of court hearings. Unlike most countries, Germany does not record witness testimonies or expert statements during trials. Instead, the court defines what was said only in the final judgment, making it impossible to verify or challenge errors on appeal. This lack of transcription, Düsberg argues, gives judges excessive power and invites arbitrary decisions.
He points out that this rule has been in place since 1871, a relic of the Kaiserreich that has no place in a modern state claiming to be a Rechtsstaat. Düsberg suggests that AI-powered transcription tools could provide a solution, ensuring accurate records of proceedings and reducing disputes over what was said in court. Such a reform would align Germany with international standards and strengthen its commitment to justice and transparency.
The Role of AI in Legal Practice
While Düsberg sees limited value in AI for legal research, he considers it ineffective in the courtroom. Oral arguments, which are decisive in criminal law, require human skills that machines cannot replicate. As he puts it, “A robot can’t perform theater.” This sentiment shows the irreplaceable role of human intuition and persuasion in legal advocacy, areas where AI falls short.
Düsberg’s perspective highlights the complexities of criminal defense and the ongoing effort to align law and justice. His advocacy for legal reform and his critique of the Ulm 5 case reflect a commitment to both his clients and the principles of a just society.
