We tend to associate the word depression with adults. After all, the usual causes of depression include overwork and stress at the workplace, deep emotional strain, and problems with self-fulfillment and health. Yet the medical statistics of recent years are cause for concern, because the shifts in numbers and proportions are impossible to overlook. They show that depression is increasingly affecting younger people. Psychiatrists diagnose teenage depression more and more often, and the number of medical files of children and adolescents diagnosed with a "depressive state" grows from year to year. The phenomenon, however, has not yet been fully researched.
Boris (name changed) was 16 years old and no different from other boys his age — he had plenty of friends, a settled routine and interests of his own. Naturally, the familiar problems of puberty were not absent either. On the whole, though, the young man had always been outgoing, curious and friendly. That is how he was until he had to change his home, his school and his circle of friends. Six months later he seemed a different person — he became withdrawn and listless, his constant good mood gave way to apathy towards everything around him, and he no longer enjoyed the things that had once made him happy. Something in his life had broken, and misunderstandings within the family only made his condition worse.
This state had persisted in Boris for a long time. Eventually his mother Klavdia (name changed) sounded the alarm and began taking her son to doctors. The doctor said the young man was in a depressed and tense state and placed him under medical observation. From then on, Boris attended regular consultations. Klavdia, who was raising her son on her own, hoped Boris would soon feel better; she was somewhat reassured that she had already taken action and waited for things to settle down. But it turned out differently. A few months later, something happened that nobody had expected. A letter from the police arrived at the house, summoning Boris for questioning. He was accused of sexually harassing young children (Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern — sexual abuse of children) and of an offense consisting of exposing his genitals in a public place — exhibitionism (Exhibitionistische Handlungen — exhibitionist acts). Klavdia thought there must be some mistake and tried to find out from her son what had happened, but he refused to talk to her. She then turned to our firm for help.
To establish the facts, the lawyer asked the police for access to the investigation file. Once the file arrived, the following picture emerged. The criminal complaint had been filed by the parents of two young children, a boy and a girl aged 7 and 8. According to the parents, the children had told them that they met a young man on their way to school. On seeing the children, he burst out laughing, and the next moment he pulled down his trousers and showed them his exposed genitals, inviting them to touch them. The children were frightened and quickly ran away. A few days later the situation repeated itself. A little boy was walking to school alone early in the morning, and when Boris saw him, he turned around, lowered his trousers slightly and showed his bare buttocks. The parents learned of all this when the girl, who was always very talkative and lively, started telling her mother about the incident in the evening when asked how her school day had gone. The alarmed mother immediately called the mother of the other child, and the boy confirmed what had happened. The next day, when the worried parents were already walking their children to school themselves, Boris appeared on the road again; the children of course recognized him at once and pointed him out to their parents. Since the village where they lived was very small, everyone in the area knew everyone else. Within just a few hours, the complaint was already on a police officer's desk.
Boris was therefore accused of two incidents. His conduct fell under § 176 Abs. 4 and § 183 Abs. 1, 2 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). The penalties these provisions lay down for the respective offenses are imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years in the first case, and imprisonment of up to 1 year or a fine in the second. In this situation, however, it had to be borne in mind that the accused was a minor, to whom the penalties of the StGB do not apply. Instead, the sanction had to be determined under the Youth Courts Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz, JGG), because the system of sanctions for young people differs from the one that applies to adults. The aim in such a case is usually not a conviction as such, but appropriate educational measures for the minor.
After reviewing the investigation file, the lawyer needed to have a detailed conversation with Boris — not only to question him, but also to build a rapport with the young man and win his trust, so as to clarify the facts more precisely and understand what lay behind them. Given that the client was a teenager, his mental state at the time and the sensitivity of the matter, the lawyer approached him with great care. He began by talking with Boris about neutral subjects to ease the atmosphere. Once a first basis of trust had formed and the lawyer sensed that the teenager was ready to talk further, he explained the course of the proceedings, which differ considerably from proceedings against adults. He then went through the substance of the accusations and the defense strategy with him, and carefully began asking him about everything.
The teenager told the lawyer that he could not explain his own behavior — why he had done it. Boris also shared his worries and described his emotional state. As it turned out, the causes of his low mood lay in the change of school, the loss of all his old friends and his rejection at the new school. Because of a single incident, he had become an outsider at the new school within a very short time and had dropped out of social life. This, combined with the thought that he was different from everyone else, probably led to his depression. At home he did not want to talk about such things, and there was no one else he could confide in, so over time he withdrew deep into himself.
It also emerged that Boris had already given a statement to the police before his mother contacted our firm — in effect without legal assistance. What is more, the questioning took place without his mother present: he had asked that she not be there when he gave his statement. When questioned about the first incident, he admitted his guilt in full. The young man even said more than he had to, confessing not only to this incident but also to another one that was not part of the charges. This spoke for his honesty and truthfulness, and overall the police found his statements credible. The second incident, however, the teenager firmly denied. He also had an alibi: on that day he had been at home in bed with a fever.
Before the trial began, the lawyer prepared the client for the fact that, even if the second incident were dropped, the court would most likely still impose a sanction, since Boris had already admitted everything himself during questioning. But because he was a minor, the sanction would not be severe.
The lawyer also agreed with Boris that he would give him a sign if he suddenly became too agitated to continue his statement in court — the lawyer would then ask the court to record the teenager's account in another way.
When the trial began, the young man did indeed become very agitated, and once the judge was satisfied that he was unable to give a statement, the hearing was structured so that he was asked clear questions he could answer with a simple yes or no. The only witnesses heard were the parents of the young children, who had not in fact witnessed the incident themselves. The lawyer pointed this out to the court once more. Taking this into account, the judge supported him when the charge relating to the second incident was discussed and when he moved for that part of the proceedings to be discontinued. The public prosecutor's office also met him halfway and agreed. The charge relating to the second incident against our client was thus dropped. That left only one incident, in respect of which he was accused of two offenses under the provisions of the Criminal Code mentioned above.
It was clear that all of this was very hard for the client; he showed his emotions and was deeply shaken. His behavior also made it apparent that he really was a very taciturn, insecure young man who led a withdrawn life. Asked how he currently spent his time, he revealed that he had not been to school for several months and did not want to see anyone. To confirm his serious emotional and psychological condition, we named Boris's treating doctor and the child psychiatrist — whom he had already seen several times before these incidents — as witnesses to testify in court.
The psychiatrist stated that the teenager had indeed been suffering from severe depression for a long time. He had also had suicidal thoughts and had already harmed himself by cutting his arm. In the doctor's opinion, depression of this severity could have led to even worse consequences than those that had already occurred. Asked by the judge how a depressive state and an unwillingness to communicate with anyone could be reconciled with such conspicuous behavior, the psychiatrist explained that the condition can manifest itself in different forms, including in this unusual way. For that reason, at every consultation he had recommended not just urgent treatment but inpatient treatment specifically, to help the patient get out of this state.
The lawyer knew from the outset that, as a minor, our client was of course not facing a prison sentence. In such cases, however, the sanction imposed is very often Jugendarrest (short-term youth detention), community service hours or supervision by the Jugendamt (youth welfare office). In his closing speech, the lawyer therefore focused on why such sanctions would be inappropriate for the client: given his serious mental condition, they could only make his situation worse. The statement of the youth welfare commission (Jugendhilfekommission) was then read out in court; it, too, pointed out that work therapy or community work were contraindicated in his condition and recommended a treatment measure as the sanction.
All parties to the proceedings agreed that, in choosing the type of sanction, the only sensible and meaningful measure in this case was treatment in a clinic. The lawyer asked many questions about how exactly the treatment would work. The doctor explained that it would take place in a specialized clinic under a program developed specifically for such patients. The program consists of daily talks, group work with other young people, various courses and other recreational activities. All of these help restore mental health and lead the patient out of depression. Only if they proved unsuccessful or the patient reacted aggressively would medication be considered. The patient would be allowed to go home on weekends. The program, however, has to run for at least 3 months. The doctor also noted that without it, Boris's condition could deteriorate considerably.
In the end, when pronouncing the judgment, the judge stated in her closing remarks that the young Boris above all had to be given the chance to heal and to emerge from his deep depression, and ordered treatment in a specialized clinic as the sanction.
The lawyer's plan of action was thus fully implemented, not least because the charge relating to the second incident against our client was dropped. Moreover, Boris was not given a penalty in the proper sense of the law — the outcome consisted solely of medical measures. In addition, the costs of the proceedings were not imposed on the client. For our part, we very much hope that the treatment does the young man good and that Boris soon overcomes his teenage depression and finds friends and joy in life again.
All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.
