Case 1
| Case Number | 1 |
| Charge | Fare Evasion |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
In this case, a woman with unclear residency and work permit status is tried in an accelerated procedure for three counts of fare evasion. Despite her financial hardship and lack of legal representation, the court imposes a hefty fine. The woman is subjected to repeated questioning about why she came to and resides in Germany, legally irrelevant to decide the case at hand.
Mobility should be a basic right, not a privilege, meaning that the defendant should not be criminalized for riding public transport without a ticket in the first place. By imposing a fine that clearly exceeds the defendant’s means, the court effectively criminalizes poverty and most likely exacerbates the very conditions that led to the offense. The court turns the woman’s inability to pay for a ticket into a question of morality, even accusing her of being a bad mother, which is a stereotype that racialized women specifically are confronted with regularly in courts, according to our observations. For the defendant, the conviction could also affect her ability to stay in the country. Punishment thus acts to enforce Germany’s border regime—and this judge appears to be a willing enforcer.
The accused woman has an interpreter but no legal representation. Throughout the trial, the judge questions her about her reasons for coming to and staying in Germany, despite this being irrelevant to the charges. The woman says that she receives some social benefits for herself and her children, and that a local social work organization assists her in managing her debts, including those from previous fare evasion convictions.
The judge appears skeptical about the woman’s story, questioning how she manages without speaking German and criticizes her for this. The woman explains that there is someone at the social work organization who helps her and will also assist her in buying a monthly ticket. She expresses willingness to pay the fine in installments, seemingly to show cooperation, but the court seems unmoved by her efforts. The judge reprimands her for her supposed moral “failings”, stating that she should not use public transport when she has debts. In his plea, the prosecutor announces that this will be the last time he proposes a fine, threatening the defendant with prison and suggesting that she would not be a good mother if she ended up in prison.
The prosecutor proposes a fine of 90 days at €10 each. The judge imposes 90 days but increases the daily rate to €15, adding up to a total fine of €1,350.
Cases from our archive
Case 28
A woman is sentenced to probation by summary proceeding, which a court-appointed attorney appealed. At trial, her lawyer is not present and she has to navigate her case without proper interpretation. The judge urges her to revoke the appeal, arguing that she has already received a lenient punishment for possession of a weapon banned in Germany. She judges her harshly based on her association with “the wrong crowd” and urges her to set a better example for her child.
Case 27
Shortly after a wave of populist outrage over a knife attack, a man convicted of attempted assault with a weapon based on little evidence appeals his sentence. At the appeal hearing, the environment is hostile, with the recent knife panic in the air: the defense is hindered from questioning witnesses while the judge and prosecutor cherry-pick testimony in an effort to justify continuing to jail the defendant pretrial, which would also facilitate his deportation. Even after a second appeal hearing does not reveal evidence sufficient to convict, the judge and prosecution insist on a high prison sentence, just two months short of his original one. The defendant is released after the second hearing because he has already served his sentence in pretrial detention.
Case 26
A young man is on trial for theft. During his trial, he is informed that his sentence will be high because he had a knife at the time, though the evidence does not show that it was used during the offense. The judge threatens the defendant with jail time. Without a lawyer to consult, he appears to have little choice but to accept the harsh sentence and put up with the judge’s insinuations that he steals for the purpose of reselling – just like unnamed “others” the judge refers to.
Case 25
Without a defendant or a lawyer present, the court issues a summary proceedings order, sentencing someone by mail for theft. The prosecution pushes for a harsh punishment and for retaining the charge “theft with a weapon” despite limited evidence of a weapon being present and without obtaining more evidence. Though the judge disagrees with the prosecution's original recommendation for a prison sentence, they sentence the defendant to a high fine of more than 1,300 Euros for stealing food.
Perspectives
Criminalized: The Anti-Migration Debate Fuels and Legitimizes Systemic Racism
Anthony Obst, Justice Collective
Fueled by media coverage of isolated violent incidents, a troubling consensus has emerged that presents increasingly severe law-and-order measures as the only solution to perceived insecurity supposedly caused by immigration. This obscures the violent realities of racist criminalization.
Jailing people for unpaid fines is about more than punishing poverty
Carmen Grimm, Bündnis zur Abschaffung der Ersatzfreiheitsstrafe
In Germany, people are incarcerated every day because they cannot pay a fine. Critics of this practice known as “Ersatzfreiheitsstrafe” are in agreement that a person’s economic status should not determine the severity of their sentence. The Coalition for the Abolition of Debtor’s Prisons agrees with this view – and urges critics to take a broader view attentive to the links between poverty and racism.
Refugees in Germany: The omnipresent border regime
Britta Rabe, Grundrechtekomitee
Even after surviving perilous journeys to reach the EU – which can include pushbacks, beatings, and torture – refugees face an exclusionary system within Fortress Europe that makes their arrival difficult or even impossible. The EU border regime extends all the way into Germany, permeating society invisibly yet tangibly for those who are excluded.