Case 20
| Case Number | 20 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
Three young defendants are summoned to fast-track proceedings (Schnellgericht) for a low-level theft case. Because the court has not lined up an interpreter for one of them, he will not be heard and instead will be sentenced with summary proceedings (Strafbefehl), meaning he will receive his sentence in the mail. After a quick hearing, the other two are each punished with €600 fines.
As with many cases we observe, the judge takes procedural shortcuts that have significant negative impacts. Though he appeared in court, the third defendant (D3) is not provided an opportunity to testify in a full trial, because the court failed to line up the correct translator and now refuses to do so. The judge also assesses that both of the others should pay €15/day of punishment – even though, since they are asylum seekers, they likely have very limited, if any, cash benefits. The court should have asked additional questions about their finances and set lower fines but did not. These procedural shortcuts show how supposedly “neutral” policies and practices facilitate the court acting as part of the border regime: The judge sentences harshly and expresses hope that all three young men will leave the country.
The case begins with back and forth over interpretation. One interpreter is present for all three defendants, who are accused of participating together in low-level theft of clothing valued at approximately €150. However, only two of the three young men speak the same language and while the interpreter is able to communicate with the third defendant (D3) to some extent, he is not certified to handle interpretation into this language as well..
The judge, prosecutor, and interpreter deliberate about what to do and decide that rather than postpone the case and get an additional interpreter, they will sentence D3 via summary proceedings. D3 is able to communicate to the court that he plans to leave Germany and return to his home country within a few weeks and the judge expresses hope that the summary proceedings order reaches him by mail before his departure.
Once this sentence has been decided, the case moves on to the other two defendants. Both are young and have been in Germany for a short time and do not have work permits. They confess to the allegations of theft, and after a brief exchange about what items exactly D1 was responsible for taking, the judge ends the questioning. Both are sentenced to fines of 40 days at €15/day for a total fine of €600 each, which the judge explains as “sufficient” because they might leave the country. It is unclear why the judge assumes this.
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.
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.