In this case, we see criminalization as a deportation mechanism. The court is uncharacteristically transparent about using harsh criminal sentencing as a tool for enforcing borders and pushing migrantized people it deems unwanted out of Germany. The sentence is much harsher than in many other cases of low-level theft we have seen, which rarely result in prison sentences, especially without probation. We also observe the harsh reality that while the defendant’s labor is severely exploited while in prison (people in prison earn well below the minimum wage), not having the right to work outside of prison makes his financial situation especially precarious. His experience with the criminal legal system and incarceration is shaped and driven by his migration status.

The defendant is a young man who has been in Germany for a few years and previously migrated to a different European country, where he obtained two work qualifications and has family. In Germany, he is not permitted to work because of his migration status (except while in prison) and does not receive social benefits.

He is accused of stealing clothing, valued at less than €100. Store security stopped him on the day in question and he returned the goods to the store, where they were put back on the shelf. At trial, the defendant admits to stealing the items and so the question is what his sentence will be.

The defense attorney adds background information, including that his client is not allowed to work in Germany. This case is his third theft charge, the last of which he spent time in prison for. In prison, he had earned a small income, but he explains that he soon ran out of money after his release.

The judge asks what the defendant intended to do with the stolen clothes. The man replies that he did not have anything to eat and that his clothes were dirty, to which the judge responds that he should have saved money while in prison and jokes that one cannot eat clothes.

In his plea, the prosecutor asks for a six-month prison sentence and that the defendant be released from pretrial detention. He says the man should reconsider living in Germany and can use the time before this prison sentence starts to consider going back to his former country of residence. The defense attorney also says that his client is qualified to find work elsewhere, but that he does not see a future for him in Germany. He requests a four-month prison sentence.

The judge sentences the man to six months in prison. He encourages him to consider whether he would be better off in his former country, and hopes that he decides this would be better than being incarcerated in Germany.