Sunday morning, May 18, 2025, 9:30 a.m. sharp - After a short trip around the world, we are standing at the gates of the Berlin-Brandenburg Juvenile Detention Center (JAA) in Berlin-Lichtenrade, waiting to be let in. We - that's Bella, Max, Laila and Vincent, all Bachelor students of Social Work at ASH Berlin, accompanied by our professor Julian Knop.
The idea: playing soccer - a sporting exchange with young people who have been deprived of their liberty due to a juvenile conviction, paired with spontaneous encounters and, in the best case, a trophy to take home with us. We're all a little excited because we don't know exactly what to expect.
Surprise guest: Arne Friedrich
After a friendly welcome, we hand in our ID cards, swap our street clothes for sportswear and are introduced to the day's activities by a social worker. We immediately notice this: The language used in dealing with the young people is unusually direct - terms such as "Kloppies" are irritating, but also raise initial questions about our professional self-image. At the same time, we sense the staff's efforts to make the event run smoothly and well for everyone involved.
We meet the other teams on the pitch - to our surprise, there are only two: one team made up of staff from Moabit Prison and another consisting of five detained young people and two JAA employees. Given the number of detainees, we are surprised by the low level of participation: only five of the 17 young people took part. When asked, we are told that the others didn't feel like playing.
The referee explains the rules of the game and then the game begins. The game is played for 10 minutes against both teams - twice. The tournament is fair throughout, the atmosphere is friendly - perhaps a little reserved at first, but the atmosphere thaws with every minute of play. The youngsters in particular show great commitment, are ambitious and genuinely enjoy playing and take the tournament visibly seriously. After the tournament, there are sausages and a small award ceremony - including a surprise guest: Arne Friedrich, a well-known former footballer, presents certificates and the trophy.
Contradictions
Unfortunately, contact with the young people during the tournament remains rather superficial - nobody really actively approaches the others. It would probably have taken a little time to get to know each other. Towards the end, we do have a brief conversation with two young people. They say that they would actually have liked to take part in the tournament - which interestingly contradicts what we were told beforehand. In the end, we couldn't find out the real reason why they didn't take part. We stand together for a while in a relaxed atmosphere, kicking the ball back and forth, while the two of them talk a little about their everyday life in prison. Then, unfortunately, they have to go back to their detention rooms and we make our way outside, where we reflect on the day together.
We're all in a somewhat depressed mood because we wonder why so few inmates have played. The tournament was supposed to be for the young people, wasn't it? Can restricting participation also be seen as a form of double punishment? Or did the tournament only serve as a staged public image of the detention center?
We also have to ask ourselves what effect such events have on young people - especially when even leisure activities are riddled with restrictive rules. If, for example, discipline is demanded during the award ceremony ('Quiet, please!' - when is it ever completely quiet on a soccer pitch?), is there any room left for real participation?
And why were the young people, who behaved largely inconspicuously during the tournament, labeled with words like 'Kloppies' in the run-up to the event? To us, it seemed as if the young people's behavior was justified and excused in advance in order to give us a good impression. However, especially in sport, a lively and passionate manner is the best way to create a relaxed atmosphere.
What gives us pause for thought is not so much the event itself, but rather what was noticeable: participation is possible - but often depends on many factors that are beyond our control. The day shows us that well-intentioned offers such as a soccer tournament can build bridges, but also come up against institutional and structural limits.
Excursus: the past and present of youth detention
Ambivalences, as reflected in our experiences, are particularly evident when looking at the history of youth detention. German juvenile criminal law still bears visible traces of its National Socialist past. The brief imprisonment of a maximum of four weeks in the form of youth detention is a type of sanction under juvenile criminal law that is referred to as a "means of restraint" in the Juvenile Courts Act (JGG). The term "means of restraint" originally comes from the Nazi era. Juvenile detention itself was introduced in 1940 as part of the "Ordinance to Supplement Juvenile Criminal Law" and was celebrated at the time as the "most modern National Socialist means of education" - intended as the "centerpiece" of juvenile criminal law, which placed obedience and discipline above individual support.
After the end of National Socialism, this structure remained virtually untouched. To this day, the Juvenile Courts Act is based on a three-part system: educational measures, correctional measures and juvenile punishment. This formal tripartite division does not reflect a purely pragmatic classification system, but rather bears an ideological signature: it differentiates between young people according to their supposed character dispositions - those who appear "educable" receive lenient measures; those who are considered stubborn or dangerous are sanctioned more severely. This is also where the concept of "harmful tendencies" comes into play, which is still enshrined in Section 17 (2) JGG. This legal value judgment makes it possible to impose penalties not only for the behavior committed, but also on the basis of a presumed personality structure. Originating from the National Socialist "theory of offender types", a way of thinking that was characterized by biological or moral defect attribution continues to have an effect here - with considerable consequences for marginalized young people.
Although today's youth detention is carried out under democratic conditions, its pedagogical orientation remains controversial. Various forms of detention are used, such as recreational detention (one or two weekends), short-term and long-term detention (min. one week, max. 4 weeks) or a warning shot detention (as a supplement to a suspended sentence). It is intended to "awaken the young person's sense of honor" and encourage them to take responsibility.
In practice, however, there is often a lack of conceptually sound socio-educational support, which means that detention often degenerates into a mere deprivation of liberty without any lasting learning effect. Numerous studies have shown the low resocialization effect, while at the same time socially disadvantaged young people are disproportionately affected. Another criticism is that detention facilities often work in isolation from the help system and there is hardly any connection to outpatient measures or social support.
These continuities raise fundamental questions: Is social work even possible in a setting so strongly characterized by control, coercion and heteronomy - or does it run the risk of becoming a vicarious agent of an authoritarian penal system? Or is it precisely in these restrictive contexts that social work has a special mission - namely to ensure that relationships, reflection and perspective work are also possible in detention centers?
A critical debate is necessary
Our conclusion is clear: There has been no real denazification of juvenile criminal law. Instead, a way of dealing with deviant behavior has been preserved that is based less on socio-pedagogical principles than on disciplinary ideals. If we want a juvenile criminal justice system that meets the requirements of a democratic, human rights-oriented society, a critical examination of these historical continuities is essential - as is the courage to reorient the structure and content of the system.
We may not have won the trophy, but we will take away some thought-provoking experiences: About opportunities and limits in working with young people who have committed crimes, about pedagogical attitudes and about the tension between control and support.
We come to the conclusion that more such encounters are needed. And perhaps new ideas - for example, a self-organized tournament next summer 2026, hopefully with even more young people on the pitch.
