Original subtitles

I did it.

D'you see many?

If I shot, you wouldn't like it.

Didier said, "Save it for Yvan!"

This guy's heavy.

He's a beauty!

You have to baptize him.

It's his first!

On your knee!

In the name of St. Hubert, congratulations!

I wish you many more!

Thank you.

Here, I can't carry everything.

It's hot as piss!

I SWEAR

Now let's have some fun!

Thank you, Yann!

- You can even sleep in there. - Not bad.

Not bad, huh?

How you gonna pay for it?

On credit! How else?

Your sister-in-law busts my balls every day.

She wants her car.

Ever since the baby was born. A nightmare!

And you? Where you crashing these days?

At a buddy's place.

Doing what?

All day long?

We hang out, drink, play video games. What else?

That's all you have to do, at 40? Play video games?

I dunno, Fabio...

Wake up, man!

On your feet! Let's dance! Dinner's over!

On your feet!

No, that's enough.

Finish the song.

You're embarrassing her.

What's wrong, Marie? Did I offend you?

She's a good dancer, anyway.

Think I had fun tonight?

You didn't even look at me.

Or bring me a drink.

Not a pat on the shoulder.

Nothing at all!

Why won't you tell your family? Your mother?

You ashamed of me?

I feel like you come to my place to eat,

take a shower, to chill,

to blow your wad...

Then, ciao!

What's wrong?

I'm with you.

I'm nice to you.

Do you love me, Fabio?

Do you love me?

You can't say it.

There's a letter for you on the table.

What is it?

No idea. I don't understand a thing.

Let me see. I'll get my glasses.

"The clerk of the Court of La Moselle,

"in accordance with article 267 of the penal code,

"summons Fabio Nucci..."

- What is that bullshit? - Let me finish.

"Order number... Juror number 22...

"is called for jury selection at the Court on June 26."

What do you mean, "juror"?

Well, you've been selected,

you'll go to court, and you'll be on a jury.

- What did I do? - Nothing.

You're just going to judge someone.

- Let's say I never saw that letter. - What?

- No, Fabio! - They'll never know.

I don't mind you using my address,

but I won't lie to the court for you.

I'm telling you, they'll never know.

Listen to me carefully.

"Any juror who, without legitimate reason, does not comply,

"may be subject to a fine,

"as per article 288 of the penal code,

"of 3,750 euros."

Do you have 3,750 euros?

Fabio, you have no choice. It's an obligation.

- What do you have? - Scrap metal from Yutz.

- What's your plate number? - EM427TH.

- It's been weighed. You can unload. - Thanks.

I just hope it's no pal of mine.

You know everybody!

- In that crowd! - The Schengen connection!

Know what the case is?

Maybe they're killers.

Rapists and shit.

Or a pedophile!

Like that fatty, Emile Louis.

With his school bus.

Fingering handicapped little girls.

Imagine judging a guy like that!

We've had serial killers!

What's his name? Francis Heaulme!

Remember him? He killed those kids in Montigny-lès-Metz.

He was the champ!

- He was paranoid. - He lived on my street.

We threw stones at him.

You're in for it now!

Stop giving me shit! Can't I eat in peace?

What now?

Oh, my!

- Come here! - Be right back.

What's up?

I was looking at you for cream.

- What cream? - To polish you up.

Gimme a smoke, if you wanna be useful.

Gimme a smoke!

Fabio, I heard the news. That's so cool!

News travels fast.

You're the first person I know who got picked.

I always thought that drawing lots thing was bullshit.

What luck! Why are you sulking?

- You'll make more money. - It's paid?

- Of course. - You sure about that?

Think it's charity work? We're not in Syria!

Watch out! In Syria, they cut your head off.

In Marie-Antoinette's time, we did that, too!

And we haven't lost the knack. We still know how!

You never watch true crime?

No.

Every time I watch one of those shows, I think, "I missed my calling!"

Going into a criminal's mind, figuring out why he did it...

I get scared, but it really excites me.

In my country, if you steal, they cut your hand off.

Really? Why not your dick?

All you think about are dicks!

And if you steal again,

it's the death penalty, back home.

This is France, we're done with death penalties!

François Mitterrand, 1981. Done!

You have a good memory for dates.

I have a brain, not a dick!

Go back to work!

I don't like to drive in Metz.

It's chaos here.

Cars pull out everywhere.

You don't have to drop me in front. I'll get out here.

- You sure? - Yeah.

Gentlemen, a tour. Some people are coming in.

Go ahead.

So that's a cell.

Is this a standard cell?

This is a large cell. Some are much smaller.

The average is 100 square feet.

- There are 4 in here. - Yes, but sometimes more.

There's no limit. We have to take as many as they send us.

- And if there's too many? - We put mattresses on the floor.

Go ahead.

The prisoners have a toilet, sink, fridge, TV.

They're allowed to decorate?

They're here for a while.

So we let them arrange their space a bit.

They use toothpaste to hang their posters.

It's not really authorized, but we tolerate it.

See enough?

All rise. The court is in session.

Good morning. The court is in session. Please be seated.

Good morning, sir. Please stand.

Please state your full name,

date and place of birth, address and profession.

Jean-Charles Fadil.

Born November 13, 2001 in Verdun.

I was in jail at Bar-le-Duc

and now I'm at Metz-Queuleu.

What was the last question?

Your profession.

Temp warehouse worker.

Fine. We'll now draw lots

for our 9 jurors.

The defense has the right to excuse 5 and the prosecution, 4.

Juror number 4,

Mr. Arnaud Barberau.

Juror number 28,

Ms. Eva Michaud.

Juror number 15,

Anthony Maison.

Excused.

You're excused, by the defense.

Juror number 22,

Fabio Nucci.

Take a seat.

Juror number 8,

Ms. Leila Richou.

Juror number 27,

Thomas Ottogali.

Excused.

You're excused by the prosecution.

Juror number 40,

Isabelle Vallon.

Juror number 14,

Julia Schuman.

I will now briefly present

the defendant's alleged crimes, resulting from the referral decision.

Members of the jury,

I remind you, only what is discussed here

may be considered in our deliberations.

So I ask you to be especially attentive.

And I remind you that you can take notes.

On July 12, 2019,

a fire broke out

in the Planchettes housing project

in Verdun.

During the evacuation,

firefighter Jérôme Werner

burned the entire upper right portion of his body

and tried to escape the flames by climbing out a window.

He fell from a height of 24 feet

and the violent fall caused a cerebral edema.

His survival prognosis was in jeopardy

and he was immediately put into an artificial coma.

Investigators quickly identified a connection

with 6 other arson attacks,

carried out 2 to 3 years earlier,

and using the same methods,

by a man named Jean-Charles Fadil,

who lived near the burned building.

Placed in custody on September 25, 2019,

Mr. Fadil quickly admitted to committing the crime of arson

that seriously injured firefighter Jérôme Werner.

The victim died on March 9, 2020.

Following the victim's death, Jean-Charles Fadil was indicted

for the destruction of property belonging to others

by starting a fire that incited someone's death.

He was sentenced to 12 years in prison

with a minimum sentence of 8 years.

I inform the court

that this crime is punishable by life in prison.

Mr. Fadil, please stand.

Throughout the investigation, you admitted to these charges.

Can you explain what motivated your appeal?

I admit to the charges, Your Honor.

I'm appealing the decision because I was misjudged.

Those 12 years were for my lawyer. Not me.

What do you mean, "for my lawyer"?

He barely defended me.

I only saw him twice before my trial.

Is that normal?

I didn't defend Mr. Fadil at his first trial.

Please note that I'm a court-appointed attorney.

Registrar, note that Mr. Bencherif was appointed to this hearing.

Mr. Fadil, you're the one on trial today.

Not your lawyer.

I also remind you that firefighter Werner died as a result of his injuries.

It's upsetting.

What is exactly?

To be in the presence of the defendant.

And to hear him speak.

He hasn't said much, thus far.

On the other hand,

he admits to the charges.

He told us so.

So it's not a question of his guilt.

The question for us is simply

to decide on a fair sentence.

I think that's a shame.

Because we won't have to determine his guilt.

That would've been a little more exciting for us.

In a certain sense, it's biased.

We have no choice, we have to sentence him.

In fact, you're not judging a crime.

You're judging a person

and how his life led to that crime.

So we're here to find out everything we can about him.

We're here to understand people, not just crimes.

I have a question.

Why isn't he being tried for manslaughter or murder?

Does that mean he'll never be considered a murderer or an assassin?

He didn't douse firefighter Werner with gasoline to kill him.

He started a fire that risked injuring or killing someone.

Still, he did kill him.

Criminal law defines things differently.

Burning property and inciting someone's death

is equivalent to murder. Both get life imprisonment.

Does he deserve life?

Jean-Charles Fadil exhibits a slightly psychopathic profile.

He has difficulty tolerating frustration,

below-average intelligence.

He's emotionally unstable.

During his incarceration, he was subject to numerous disciplinary measures.

In particular, for insulting and threatening

the guards.

And during my examination, he tended to lose control.

He was threatening and said, "I'll set you on fire, too."

That's not true. I never said that.

You don't have the floor, Mr. Fadil.

Don't interrupt the expert.

Please, go on.

The defendant recounts an idealized childhood,

with no notable difficulty.

Yet, the elements in his file

indicate indisputable traumatic episodes.

With the other prisoners, he seems to prefer to keep to himself.

I don't wanna go back.

What?

Why not?

That's normal. It's the first day.

Is your son a child you wished for?

Wanted?

Well, yeah.

Hold on, ma'am...

To be clear, these aren't trick questions.

But to properly judge your son,

we need to know his history, or try to understand it.

That's why, for example, I ask if he was wanted or not.

Do you understand?

Yes, my son was wanted. He was conceived in love.

Fine.

What kind of mother were you?

Permissive?

Authoritative, strict?

Sort of, yes.

Ma'am, please try to be a bit more precise.

You know your son's been convicted of arson several times.

I don't hold you responsible for his actions. But...

What did you say to him? Precisely what did you do

to try to prevent that?

Did you punish him?

Take him to a psychologist?

What did you do?

I told him he had to listen to me.

That he had to stop doing that.

I told him he made me ashamed in the neighborhood.

They all stared at me because they knew.

I couldn't stop crying, I couldn't sleep.

You're not exactly answering my question.

How you felt is...

Enough! Can't you see she's answering you?

- In fact, she's not... - She's not the defendant, I am!

Be seated and calm down, or I'll have you removed.

You can understand, this is hard for him.

I know it's hard for him. It's hard for her, too.

But we await a response.

And so does the victim's family.

And perhaps you, too, ma'am, await some answers.

It's difficult, but let's try to continue.

- Where's Mr. Fadil's father today? - In Abidjan.

When did he go to Africa?

In 2010.

He answered President Ouattara's call.

He said he had to go back to develop his country.

He wanted to start a business. He said there was nothing for him here.

Then, one morning, he woke up and said he was leaving.

That he was leaving everything behind. I said, "Go!"

And how old was your son when he left?

He was 10.

- And he never saw him again? - No.

It must have been very hard for your son

to see his father disappear overnight

and never hear from him again.

No, not all that much.

- It wasn't hard? - No.

You know, madam,

we often have mothers testify.

I imagine it's very difficult for them, more than for anyone else.

And they often tell us that...

their sons never caused any problems, they were sweet, etc.

I imagine that you're protecting him.

But in the end, your story isn't very credible.

A father leaving is a shock for a child.

I'm sorry, but no.

I don't think so. He never gave that impression.

You know, Jean-Charles never lacked for anything.

I did all I could for him to have everything.

But then came the fires.

He went to prison.

And when he got out of prison, he had changed.

He was fine.

He wanted to marry Samia. He agreed to marry Samia.

There's no record of this Samia. Did he care for her?

Of course he did, he wanted to marry her.

Samia was a great girl.

Her family knew about him. They agreed.

Thank you, ma'am.

Mr. Fadil, please stand.

Why didn't you ever tell

the investigating judge about Samia?

Why did you hide that?

But who's Samia? Who gives a shit?

I don't even know her.

You don't know her?

Your mother says you were engaged. Why hide that?

That's all in their heads!

In my head, there's no one!

I'll never marry Samia!

I don't even know her.

So Samia doesn't mean anything to you?

No, I never liked her. I don't give a shit about her.

Fine. Thank you, you may be seated.

Does the jury have any questions?

Madam Prosecutor, any questions?

Yes, Your Honor.

- Good morning, Mrs. Touré. - Good morning.

You're wearing a scarf. Are you Muslim?

Of course.

I ask you to please look at the judge, when you answer my questions.

- Are you a practicing Muslim? - I'm a believer.

Fine.

So I imagine you raised your son in that religion.

- That's normal. - Exactly.

Please look at the judge.

I know that's a somewhat difficult exercise.

The prosecutor asks the questions, but you must respond to the judge.

Is your son a practicing Muslim?

Did he like to go to the mosque or observe Ramadan?

Did he find a kind of peace in practicing his religion?

He prayed, went to the mosque, observed Ramadan.

No!

Sir, please don't speak to the witness directly.

Silence, or I'll adjourn the trial!

Madam!

That's enough!

Madam, that goes for you, too. Don't address the defendant directly.

Especially in a foreign language.

You wanna make me into some ISIS terrorist?

I have nothing to do with ISIS!

I've got nothing to do with those bearded jerks!

Did you think I was a terrorist?

Now they'll say I lit the fire, yelling, "Allah Akbar"!

Silence! No one's ever said that.

You're pissing me off! Stop talking about religion!

Calm down. We heard you.

It's weird his mother was so oblivious when his father left.

The kid couldn't put words to it all.

So he experienced that separation like a spectator.

That must be why...

You're going further than the experts!

I think he just wants to destroy everything around him.

Even worse, he takes it out on people like him, who have nothing.

Maybe it's precisely because they're like him.

That makes sense.

He and his mother obviously live very close to the fire.

That makes sense. It's not negligible.

The kid's angry.

Stop excusing him like that.

I'm not excusing him. I'm trying to explain.

It's always the fault of social injustice, police violence, racism.

We're sick of that bullshit.

You don't know those people.

I know them quite well. I even treat them.

Exactly! That's irrelevant.

I have them in class all year long.

They take pleasure in ruining everything,

including their opportunities.

All I'm saying is that despair

can lead to destruction.

But in no way am I trying to justify his violence or anything else.

I wonder about his reaction to Islam.

- Don't you find that questionable? - Yes.

I don't know what he said, but it was hostile.

What I understood was

his mother's relationship with Islam doesn't speak to Fadil at all.

I think he's into something more moderate.

She even said so.

She says he hangs out with his buddies, he smokes, he drinks.

I don't think he's into some super strict religious thing.

Plus... his mother's

another generation.

She's more old-school.

When she mentioned marriage, it was obviously super important to her.

While he clearly couldn't care less about Samia.

I think he was afraid he'd bear the brunt of his mother's religion.

He's not dumb. He's intelligent.

- He's wary of assumptions. - Exactly, he's no dummy.

And...?

Know what taqiyya is?

- Taqiyya? - Yes.

- What is that? - You don't know either?

It means "prudence" in Arabic.

Yes.

It's a concealment technique.

Jihadists practice taqiyya.

They act like everyone else.

They go out, drink, party.

They dress like most people.

Then they quietly launch attacks, undetected.

So you're saying that Fadil pretends to rail against Islam,

but deep down, he is a fundamentalist.

His mother said he was Muslim.

That's what pissed him off. Didn't it?

What the hell is the Muslim religion doing here?

He's accused of arson, not being a terrorist.

Pyromania's not a religion, it's a pathology.

It's a sickness.

If he were really sick, he wouldn't be in court.

So that proves he's not a faker.

No, he's not a faker.

No. He's just been hiding his engagement to Samia for years.

If you're sure, fine.

I'm allowed to ask questions.

Excuse me, but...

What makes you think he's been hiding his engagement for years?

He just seems to be opposed to this arranged marriage.

Problems with that religion exist. I'm not making that up.

That exists in today's society.

Maybe we're not supposed to say so, but still.

You say I go further than the experts. But I think you're stretching reality!

What are the people like there?

Dunno... Young, old.

Are they nice?

They're okay.

What do they do in life?

Why do you wanna know?

You spend all day with them.

You know how curious I am.

I don't feel like thinking about them at night.

You really don't want to share anything with me?

When I walked in the room,

I was shocked.

I couldn't recognize my father

lying in front of me.

'Cause...

his face was...

deformed.

It had melted.

His hair was all gone.

His skin was...

all tight.

I couldn't even go near him because of the germs.

But all I wanted to do was take his hand.

I went to see him every day.

Even on weekends, after school, all the time.

Because I thought...

if I missed one day, it'd be bad luck.

If he died on a day when I didn't go,

I'd blame myself the rest of my life.

I'd tell him what I did that day.

Stuff about school.

About home, too.

And one evening... Well, one afternoon,

I saw I had lots of calls and messages from my mother.

She couldn't even put two words together.

So I...

it really freaked me out.

I knew immediately.

I knew immediately I'd just lost my father.

Thank you, miss.

The court knows how difficult this is for you.

So what do you expect from this second trial?

I'm here to talk about my father.

So he's not forgotten.

Because he's a hero, he's saved lives.

And I want him to get more for what he did.

Just 12 years, when he took a life!

Miss, I hear your pain.

But neither victims nor plaintiffs can demand a sentence. Only the prosecutor.

- Then tell her to do her job! - Miss, calm down.

And don't speak to me in that tone.

Will you be okay?

I think I'd like to stop.

I can do that

and have you replaced by a substitute juror.

Won't you regret it?

This morning was hard.

Plus the photos...

Yes.

If you stay, it's an opportunity to do justice to those photos.

Maybe...

Say something. I'm talking to you.

Do you hear what I'm saying?

Why can't you hear me?

You okay?

I need to walk.

We're 450 miles apart.

And now I'm up against a wall.

We just built a house.

We're supposed to move in 3 weeks, and I'm paralyzed.

I haven't packed one box.

Everybody told me not to buy that house.

I think I did it to please him.

Because I'm 40.

And sooner or later you have to build something, but...

I don't want that.

We're together a third of the time.

I spend 5 days with him, 10 days without.

Five days together, 10 days apart.

For three years now.

At first, I was so happy to go.

I had butterflies and I was sad to go back home.

And now it's the opposite.

I go there with a lump in my throat, and breathe when I'm home.

Why stay with him?

What does he give you?

I've always been attracted to guys who are toxic.

All my life, I've always fallen for

guys who are super critical, really mean.

This time, I protected myself.

I picked a guy who was nice, reliable. A guy I could count on.

He's a guy who commits. He doesn't do things by halves.

He commits 100%. I think that's a huge quality.

I'm not like that.

So our relationship can be really beautiful

when we see each other every other weekend.

I'd like to keep it that way. It suits me.

I want to stay here with what I know, in my house.

And just see him for the good times.

In 3 years, he's never been here.

He came just once, a year ago, and stayed for 24 hours.

Whereas, I...

I travel 450 miles each way.

At my own expense.

And...

I think...

it's time to go and you're just panicking.

Don't you wanna go?

No.

I don't want to.

But the house is a beauty!

One hell of a house!

We really went all out.

Julia Schuman, M.D.

The investigation has determined

that the fire started in an empty ground-floor apartment.

Yes.

Can you tell us how many apartments were occupied at the time of the fire?

Three apartments were occupied.

There were three tenants.

Out of how many apartments?

Three out of ten.

What condition was the building in?

It was very, very rundown.

- Rundown? - Yes.

Why did you stay?

We made the request.

They promised to give us another apartment.

But it dragged on forever.

Project the building photos, please.

It's number D478.

Thank you.

The investigation revealed that the exterior cladding,

made of highly flammable aluminum-composite plates,

caused the fire to spread quickly.

The materials used for windows and partition barriers

were of particularly poor quality.

The expert's report criticizes the absence of a door-closing system,

which caused massive smoke accumulation

in the only stairwell, obstructing it.

What's your question?

I'm getting there.

All these elements reveal the building's advanced state of degradation.

Any domestic accident could turn these homes into powder kegs.

You're questioning who's responsible for the crime now?

Madam Prosecutor, you asked your questions, let the defense ask theirs.

I simply want to highlight the disastrous state of this building,

which would have gone up in flames at the slightest domestic accident.

That's interesting and precise.

But I remind the court that the crime your client is charged with

does not necessitate the intention to cause death.

That doesn't mean that my client intended to cause that death.

Mr. Fadil, please stand.

Mr. Fadil, would you like to react to what your lawyer just said?

It's your trial, Mr. Fadil. Now's the time.

We're wasting time.

I'm sorry for his family.

Still, nobody's forced to become a fireman.

What do you mean, Mr. Fadil? Please explain.

When you choose to be a fireman, Your Honor,

you know that you're taking risks.

Maybe that's why they become firemen. So...

it's an occupational hazard.

I don't know...

The court takes note of your response.

Court is adjourned. We'll pick up on Monday morning at 9 A.M.

I don't understand kids today.

What do they get outta starting fires?

Screwing around like that?

It's fucked up!

What's the point?

I dunno. Maybe there is none.

With people like that, have no pity, Fabio!

Plus, he's Black.

What difference does that make?

He's French.

Nobody sees him as French.

They lump us all together.

You're paranoid. No one thinks you're a criminal.

- He's right, Fabio. - I hope so.

I remind you, during those attacks...

people thought I was some fanatic,

ready to pull out a...

a Kalashnikov! That's pretty nuts!

No shit, with that beard, you look scary.

What'd he say?

He said that guy's possessed by a demon.

Plus, in the Koran, fire represents evil.

It's the devil's weapon.

See that, Fabio?

You're judging the devil.

Let's go, guys! Fabio, you coming?

We're going to Germany.

Not tonight.

It'll be a change of pace!

No.

- You sure? - Certain.

Okay, let's go!

- Bye, Eliane. - Bye!

What's the matter?

Dunno, I'm scared I'm not up to it.

We sit in that room all day, listening to 'em talk.

And he's in that box.

On the other side of a window.

They're all there, waiting for answers.

Even he doesn't know why he did all that.

And what do you feel?

I see someone who...

I know we have to convict him.

But when I look at him...

I dunno...

Think he can change?

- Aren't you cold, honey? - No.

You're all wet. Dry yourself off.

- Don't get burned. - Stop, will you!

Here's the salad. Have some.

Hi!

The jury!

Don't be such a pain!

Look what you've done!

Hey, handsome!

How's it going?

So, star?

I'm no star!

You go to court! Do they send you a chauffeur?

He's no star! He's a clown.

- You're jealous! - I'm not. It's a circus.

- Circuses are nice. - For a clown, sure!

So tell us, how's it going?

It's interesting.

Isn't it all sort of bullshit?

How so?

The defendant has a court-appointed attorney, doesn't he?

Yes.

Inevitably guilty!

He'll never get out. He's fucked!

He burns buildings and you want him out?

I didn't say that. Just a fair trial.

We all know the story.

If you can buy a star lawyer, you get out.

If you're poor, you stay in the can!

Look at those ministers who stole millions from the government!

They kept their jobs. Think that's normal?

And Sarkozy!

He diverted millions during his presidential thing.

- Campaign! - Campaign.

He's not alone!

And now he's out.

Babe, your kabobs are great.

Tell us what you do there.

Yeah, I'd like to know.

- We listen to the details of the case. - You listen!

Then we ask questions.

He just listens and gets paid.

They'll tell you what to say.

They'll manipulate you all!

And in the end, the kid'll be fucked.

- Know how you're gonna vote? - No.

They'll make you think it was your decision.

That's how you'll get fucked.

- Obviously. - No question about it.

They'll pull out penal code

422, bla-bla-blah...

Objection, Your Honor!

Oh, my! Clear the courtroom!

The best was at McDonald's! Remember?

She'd never been to McDonald's in her life.

When they're out of something, it says "sold out."

She said, "Hello, I'd like a sold-out salad please."

I was doubled over, laughing.

She was so funny.

Look how it suits him!

Huh, Fabio? What are you waiting for?

I keep telling him that.

You'd better move your ass.

Don't you wanna be godfather?

I'm already his uncle.

You'd make your brother so happy.

You already said no twice.

It's just a piece of paper.

I'm talking about being godfather! A special bond.

Godfather, godmother... It's just for the presents!

Who cares about presents? We want someone to count on!

There aren't that many!

- What? - I'm not coming home tonight.

Why not?

I'll spend a few days here.

How'll you get to Metz tomorrow?

- I'll manage. - Did I do something?

No, I just need some time, that's all.

When will you come back?

- Ciao, beautiful! - Ciao.

Fabio, don't lose the knack! Roll me one.

I'll just stay a few days.

You're a real ball and chain!

- Want my credit card? - No, I'll be OK.

Just asking!

Crank up the beast.

- Wanna go for a spin? - Sure.

It's still insured, right?

Think I'm a gypsy?

Like sex offenders, a pyromaniac has irresistible impulses.

Psychological tension mounts to a certain threshold,

where he can still resist.

Then he has to start a fire to release the impulse.

What motivates an arsonist to start fires?

He wants to break the rules, but avoid punishment.

Meaning, not get caught.

It's about the pleasure of domination,

by provoking distress all around them

and witnessing it.

You concluded that Mr. Fadil's discernment was impaired.

Do all arsonists experience an impairment,

or even an eradication, of their discernment when they act?

Arsonists rarely have any perspective.

They don't have full awareness.

Their discernment is commonly impaired.

Not eradicated, but impaired.

In my opinion, Mr. Fadil was indeed suffering

from a psychological disorder

that hampered his control over his actions.

Thank you, sir.

I have no further questions, Your Honor.

Fine.

Does the defense have any questions?

Good morning, sir. I have just one question for you.

In the 27 pages of your report,

two paragraphs - just 11 lines - concern Jean-Charles Fadil.

The rest describes pyromania in general.

How do you explain that?

I don't understand your question, Counsellor.

I'll help you then. Let me rephrase it.

Were you asked to assess Jean-Charles Fadil or a typical pyromaniac?

Perhaps your client is simply a typical pyromaniac.

With an altered, but not eradicated, discernment?

Yes, in layman's terms.

I'm trying to understand.

Why is one arsonist's discernment impaired,

and another's eradicated?

- What differentiates them exactly? - I just explained that.

No, you didn't explain it. You decreed it.

So I'll ask you again, what is your opinion based on?

On expertise you don't possess.

I realize that you'd like your client to be declared criminally irresponsible.

Yet you didn't request a second opinion.

True. Do you know why?

Because it would be useless.

They would come to the same conclusion.

Because the ill can no longer avoid responsibility.

Councilor, your client was in control

and was fully aware of his actions...

- Excuse me... - Pardon?

I'm sorry, we had a technical problem.

Could you repeat your statement? We didn't hear you.

Of course.

What I understood is that a pyromaniac can't resist setting a fire.

That's what the expert said.

He said he's compelled to start fires.

As for free will... it's out the window!

How do you punish that?

How can you imprison someone for something they're not responsible for?

I may shock you, but here's what I think.

They're explaining...

More or less. I'm simplifying.

He has a psychiatric problem.

And if he set the fire, it's also... Not only!

It is also because of his psychiatric problem. So...

His discernment was impaired. So we should reduce the sentence.

I disagree.

I think he's even more dangerous

because his action was dictated by a psychiatric problem.

And because he's sick, we should protect ourselves even more.

It's insane to hear such a thing.

From a teacher, no less.

I'm not a teacher here. You're not a doctor.

We're jurors.

You bring up your students whenever it suits you.

So I can say what I like.

And, unfortunately, that reasoning leads to

prisons filled with sick people who don't belong there.

They become medieval asylums.

You don't lock up sick people, you treat them.

In prison, there's no treatment.

Our only choice is to force Fadil to be treated.

You can't force anyone to be treated. You're a doctor, you know that!

You think prison's better?

I don't only see him as sick.

I see someone who takes pleasure in starting fires.

Who never tried to cure himself after his first conviction.

Who doesn't have a word to say about his actions.

Okay? And who projects his guilt onto everyone but himself.

That scares me.

That person will do it again, as soon as he gets out.

Well, he's gonna get out, no matter what.

So locking him up for 30 years...

If he's not treated, he'll only get worse.

He'll certainly do it again when he gets out.

It has to be voluntary. He has to want to.

He doesn't even know what that is. We have to lead him.

In any case, it's a risk.

I feel like

we have to take a chance

that things can improve for him.

That something can change.

Because there's a doubt.

Because we're not sure if he's doomed in advance.

In fact, we're not sure he won't do it again.

I looked at the fire...

The flames.

I was drawn to it.

The firemen got there.

And in their eyes... I saw fear.

And I liked that.

That gave you pleasure?

To feel the fear in the firefighters' eyes?

That's what you just said.

I know it's wrong to say that.

But...

That's what I felt.

I was happy because they were there for my fire.

Okay, the firefighters came for you, for your fire.

It was your creation. Is that it?

Yes.

So, you saw the crates in advance.

You knew they'd go up in flames quickly.

And you planned it out in your head.

You planned it. Premeditated...

There was no plan.

Then what was it?

In fact...

When that happens to me,

I need...

I need the flames.

That's all I can think about.

I have two voices in my head.

One says, "Go for it!"

And the other says, "No, don't."

In fact, the flames make me feel good.

Yes...

I love fire, it calms my heart.

Mr. Fadil.

You don't understand that fascination with fire.

I'm the only one who understands it.

You heard the expert psychiatrist, Mr. Fadil.

He concluded that your discernment at the time of the crime was impaired.

He didn't say "eradicated," he said "impaired."

Do you understand the difference?

I don't understand any of that bullshit.

Then I'll explain.

Impaired discernment...

Who gives a shit! I'm not crazy! I know I'm not crazy.

The expert's report...

Stop with that!

He says something...

No, but...

Impaired, eradicated... That's crap!

It makes a huge difference, especially from a judicial standpoint.

"Eradicated" means you're not criminally responsible.

You're not in my head.

Fine. Any questions from the jury?

Mr. Fadil,

have you ever had suicidal thoughts?

Mr. Fadil...

You've started 7 fires in 5 years.

Do you realize the seriousness...

the consequences...

of your fires?

Do you feel remorse?

Do you feel guilty?

Yes.

Yes?

Then...

Is there anything you'd like to say to the victim's family?

To the daughter

of the victim, who's here?

I apologize for what I did.

You know...

Three years of prison...

was really hard.

I had nightmares, I thought about my freedom all the time.

I know I should be punished for what I did.

But...

I can't take it anymore.

Sometimes I can't take it anymore.

Madam Prosecutor, do you have any questions?

Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Fadil,

why didn't you begin psychological treatment in prison?

Because it's useless there.

It's not even a shrink, it's a nurse.

He's not there to listen to us.

That's not true, sir. You can say whatever you like,

but it's not true. Sorry.

You don't really want to get better, in the end.

I should see a nurse just to please you or the judge?

Some shitty nurse who won't even listen to me?

Mr. Fadil, please calm down.

So that's your answer.

No use talking to you!

Sir, you filed this appeal to the judgment of your first trial.

You claim the sentence is excessive.

In what way, Mr. Fadil, is it excessive?

I'm 22 years old, Madam Prosecutor.

I've had problems for half my life.

Prison is inhuman!

Four in a cell.

We take turns sleeping on the floor.

I can't bear that for so many years.

I won't make it.

I'm not so frail, you know?

Yeah, I know.

Why are you all buttoned up?

I don't know. I'm not used to dressing like this.

There!

That's better. You look less uptight.

Less like you're playing a role.

Slow down.

What's gotten into you?

I'm sorry.

Have a nice evening, then.

It's the last day.

We have to turn in our verdict.

Don't you wanna come?

Mr. Fadil isn't lying.

He admits to it, and has always admitted to it.

He could have lied.

So many defendants in that box

just keep denying the evidence.

Blathering on.

Swearing that the victim is lying.

The witness is lying.

The investigating judge didn't understand.

We've seen it all in this courtroom.

Defendants who proclaim their innocence

and cry "injustice", when everything condemns them.

You, at least...

I'd like to emphasize Mr. Fadil's constant position,

you were spared that sad spectacle.

And, Mr. Fadil, know that I take that into consideration.

But does admitting to a crime make it less serious?

Less unbearable?

And to be completely frank, isn't that the least one could do?

We're not obliged to reward a criminal for admitting his crime.

No, in truth, I expected something else.

Not that I imagined Mr. Fadil's pre-trial detention

would help him become someone else, transform him,

or make him fully aware of his actions.

But I never imagined, before entering this courtroom,

such a regression.

The box is empty.

It's without words, without meaning, without explanation.

When Mr. Fadil speaks, he explodes.

He doesn't say a word. Just expresses anger, incomprehension.

And I salute the work of his lawyer.

I know how hard it is to defend a man who's out of control.

So perhaps I'm the one who should embody the accusation.

But he makes the accusations.

What the defendant says, or rather articulates,

is, "I chose to set a fire

"and Mr. Werner chose to die because he's a firefighter."

That's what he says.

He says, "We're co-authors of that death.

"We share the responsibility."

And that...

That terrifies me.

It terrifies me because...

Excuse me, but who gives a damn about that admission?

It's the exact opposite of awareness.

A signature at the bottom of a statement.

Know why he had no trouble confessing to his crime?

Because he doesn't feel responsible for Mr. Werner's death.

And that's why his admission of the crime

is much more concerning than reassuring.

But there's worse.

He stayed.

That's what the geolocation on his cell phone tells us.

He didn't budge.

He watched Mr. Werner's body falling.

Consumed in flames.

As it became an inert...

smoking mass.

The spectacle of fire wasn't enough, he also had to see death.

At that precise moment, when the fire finally killed,

Fadil stayed there.

He didn't flee, he wasn't afraid.

He didn't refuse the consequences of his actions.

He savored the spectacle.

And what should worry us

is that fascination.

It's that pleasure, that satisfaction.

That's what kept him there.

Now that he's seen that,

I fear he preferred that falling body to the flames.

That was three years ago.

Three years.

He hasn't budged an inch.

And he victimizes himself more and more.

So...

the prison's to blame.

I won't deny our overcrowded prisons

and their deplorable conditions in France.

But just last month, Mr. Fadil,

a prisoner detained in the same prison as you,

appeared in that very box,

itemizing the diplomas he's earned in prison

and the psychological treatment he's begun there.

And the bars he's behind are the same as yours, Mr. Fadil.

Prison, ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

is also what you make of it.

Last night, I wondered,

how can we avoid another fire?

How can we avoid another tragedy?

How can we avoid another death?

So I'm going to be tough.

Because Jean-Charles Fadil leaves me no choice.

Tougher than his first trial.

Because I think he's much more worrisome today than he was yesterday.

Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

I'm shocked.

I'm shocked by this indictment.

I'm very afraid of what I feel is happening here.

Fifteen years imprisonment?

Three years more than the first trial.

Whereas nothing indicates that this man wanted the death of another.

Quite the contrary.

Jean-Charles' relationship with fire is unrelated to another's death.

In setting fire, Jean-Charles gave life to something essential to him.

Fire as...

as a means of exercising power.

A way of animating the world around him,

of giving life, of finally feeling something.

Stop looking at your notebooks!

You have to confront this reality.

That's what he feels an irrepressible need for.

But not to kill.

Not to take a life.

Not to see a body fall or take a father away.

That's not what you're here to judge.

You're here to judge an arsonist.

Not a murderer.

But who here really cares about Jean-Charles?

Who makes the effort to hear his silences?

To understand his inability to speak?

You, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm looking at you.

You who can show nothing, reveal nothing.

I can see you resisting emotion.

And I wonder, do they still feel anything?

Will they be able to tear off those icy masks

when they return to the deliberation room?

Do they pretend to be indifferent, or are they really indifferent?

It's so much easier to relate to a young woman who lost her father.

Within seconds, she naturally became your sister,

your daughter, your granddaughter.

And her pain became your own.

But him...

him in his box...

he'd need many years to build a bridge to you.

He'd need decades just to make you wince.

I want you to be aware of that.

Of that injustice. Because it is an injustice.

Jean-Charles Fadil can't have the right words.

He can't tell you what you expect,

what would reassure you.

That box cloisters him in defensive mode.

From that box,

everything is hopeless.

He feels how far away you are,

how afraid, how horrified.

Even I, despite my robe, feel contaminated by the accusation.

I want to tell you something.

Defendants always apologize poorly.

Too fast, too late, not loud enough.

Nothing goes right. Ever.

You know why? Because that seat is cursed.

And especially because that seat is the incarnation of evil.

That's the injustice that no one can undo.

That's the injustice the prosecutor dives into.

But you must build a bridge between yourselves and him.

Because that's your duty.

You just have a few minutes left.

You just have my voice.

Look at him.

Fifteen years is more than half his life.

When he gets out, he'll have spent a third of his life in jail.

Is that what you want?

Are you willing to participate in that?

That's what the prosecutor asks of you.

The prosecutor who represents "society's interests."

To expel a man, rather than to treat him.

Making him even more dangerous, because he's desperate.

In the name of what?

The victims' suffering?

Since when do we confuse justice with revenge?

Since when?

The death penalty's been abolished.

But we also condemn to live,

by confusing punishment with banishment.

You're about to pronounce a sentence to be lived.

It's up to you to decide which.

Don't leave him at the bottom of that box.

Tell him he can pull through, tell him that he's worth it.

That sentence will be just if it changes him.

If it brings him back among us.

Finish the job.

He's in your hands.

Yes, you could give him 30 years. But...

That's the max, legally. It's not a sentence, in itself...

Just because we can doesn't mean we have to.

It's a framework, a limit.

It's 30 years max for impaired discernment.

We already discussed...

I think we all agree it makes no sense

to give him the maximum sentence of 30 years.

Right?

Right.

The prosecutor is demanding a sentence of 15 years

because she thinks that's balanced.

But you're not obliged to agree.

You can choose 5 years, 10 years...

Or more.

We've gone from life imprisonment to 30 years.

The prosecutor wants 15. That's already a big reduction.

We're just explaining the legal parameters.

Not what you should think.

You can give 30 years. Does he deserve 30 years?

Between one and 30, there are lots of possibilities.

Let's say, for a murder,

you get 15 to 20 years, approximately.

For a rape, a little less.

And for a fire...?

No, I already explained.

There are no rules, no scale.

Because we're not judging a crime, we're judging a man.

And the path that led him to act.

So the sentence depends on many things.

In absolute terms, one can be prosecuted for murder,

incur life imprisonment, and be sentenced to 5 years.

And that sentence may be fair

for that crime. Do you understand?

In any case, life imprisonment

doesn't exist in reality.

Because even the Paris terrorists will get out one day.

I read that Salah Abdeslam...

You're confusing the sentence and its execution,

which is not our jurisdiction.

It's not the court's jurisdiction.

You have to accept the idea that we can't control everything.

And what happens next, happens next. That's not our job.

There.

So, Fadil got 12 years the first time.

The prosecutor wants to add 3 more.

I feel like it's punitive, like she's punishing him for appealing.

It's true. Otherwise, what?

Does that mean she thinks we're idiots,

asking for more than he got the first time

to be sure we give him enough?

I don't think so.

The prosecutor simply thinks the first sentence was too light.

She said so.

She said she sees no improvement in his behavior in detention.

Even less in the past year.

And today sees no sign of reassurance.

That motivates a longer sentence,

and a period of 10 years without parole.

The prosecutor is saying,

that way, for at least 10 years, society is protected from Mr. Fadil.

That's what she wants, but we're not obliged to do so.

Like it or not, Mr. Fadil's part of society.

The prosecutor said so, herself.

So what do we do with that question?

Is the idea to...

to cut him off from society, to isolate him for as long

as possible?

Do we banish him or try to reintegrate him?

I've been listening to you all.

It seems like 15 years shocks you.

I'm sorry, but someone died.

How much is a human life worth to you all?

I'm sorry. To me, 15 years is a fair sentence.

I think that's a pitfall we can avoid.

How much is a man's life worth?

Ten years? Thirty years? A hundred years?

I don't think that equation will lead us anywhere.

You heard the victim's daughter say, "We got a life sentence."

The plaintiffs always say that.

The pain is for life.

- Exactly. - I don't think that's the question.

What do you want?

What do you want? Reintegration or repression?

Order or justice? What do you care about?

Excuse me, but do you really think he can be integrated?

Reintegrated?

If he's out in 10 years and kills again,

I'll never get over it.

But he will get out, sooner or later.

And if it's in 20 years, he'll be twice as dangerous.

I don't know what society has to gain in that scenario.

I think 12 years is already huge.

Let's try not to refer to the first judgment.

Let's try to treat this case as if it had never been tried before.

- In the local paper... - No, that, too!

We don't refer to newspaper articles.

The press is very approximate.

We stick with what was said during the trial.

I've already said that.

But 15 years... Do you realize?

What message are we sending?

He appealed, so he still has hope.

And we say he's better off not believing and to despair?

With a sentence like that, he won't be able to build anything.

I insist on the message.

What message do we want to give him?

Well, it's society I'd like to give a message to.

And what's the message?

"We're locking up a kid in 10 sq. ft. with cockroaches and bedbugs"?

So, we're back to balancing society's interests,

the defendant's interests, and the victim's interests.

It's not in anyone's interests to give Fadil 15 years!

He has to be treated. Both in jail and outside.

- He has to be punished. - Let's get rational!

I have doubts about his intellectual abilities.

Even with a shrink.

I don't know if he's capable of working on himself.

Really!

I agree with you on the idea

of treatment, which I think should reassure everyone.

You can't judge his intellectual capacity in so little time.

You can see he hasn't evolved in 3 years.

I'm with the prosecutor on this. Nothing's changed in 3 years.

- He doesn't want treatment. - Yes, he does.

He hasn't changed.

He can't even express himself.

- Look at his background. - I come from the same background!

I'm not much of a talker...

To talk about what I feel.

Even in life.

But that doesn't mean I'm not thinking.

In fact, we don't know this guy. We don't understand him.

He's not really here, he's...

He's not with us, I mean.

Maybe he'll get there one day, but...

Now...

Even with help...

He doesn't exist.

There are lots of broken guys, like him, in life.

Broken from the start.

Maybe that's why he starts fires.

If we saddle him with 15 years...

we'll destroy him, we'll lose him.

Fifteen years is way too much.

Even 10 years.

So...

Shall we vote?

Thanks.

All rise. The court is in session.

Please, be seated.

Mr. Fadil, please stand.

To question number one,

the response was "yes", by a majority of at least 8 votes.

To question number two,

the response was "yes", by a majority of at least 8 votes

As a result, the Court declares Mr. Jean-Charles Fadil

guilty of the criminal charges

and punishable by articles 322-6 and 322-10

of the penal code.

The defendant is sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment

with a minimum of 10 years.

The Court also orders, in application of article 131-36-1 of the penal code,

socio-judicial monitoring for a period of 10 years,

which obliges Jean-Charles Fadil

to submit to medical examination, treatment or care,

even within a hospital system,

in accordance with article 132-45 of the penal code.

Madam Prosecutor, do you have any further requests?

- No, Your Honor. - Thank you.

Court is adjourned.

You've asked for Enzo to be baptized.

You must educate him in the faith,

so that he loves God and his fellow man,

as Christ instructed us to.

I ask godfather and godmother to come forward.

And you, who've agreed

to be Enzo's godfather and godmother,

must help his parents exercise their responsibilities.

Are you willing to do so?

Yes.

Enzo,

I baptize you

in the name of the Father,

in the name of the Son,

and in the name of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

Fabio!

Subtitles by Rosemary Ricchio

Subtitling TITRAFILM