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 23
A woman comes to Germany for health treatment, her family collecting thousands of euros to prepay costs and secure a visa. A federal agency accuses her of forging identity documents. Despite the prosecution admitting lack of evidence for intentional deception and requesting acquittal, the court sentences her to a harsh fine, jeopardizing both her stay in Germany and her health.
Case 22
A man is held in pretrial detention for months and sentenced to a fine of several thousand euros for selling cannabis. Although at the time of the trial, the legalization of cannabis consumption and further decriminalization of possession and supply is imminent, the court strongly condemns the defendant's actions. The prosecutor described them as “extremely reprehensible”.
Case 21
The court puts pressure on a man to revoke his appeal of a conviction for resisting arrest and assault of police. Despite the defendant’s distress, the judge appears uninterested in the man’s account of the alleged offense. The outcome–no relief for the defendant–appears predetermined by the judge, prosecutor, and the defendant’s attorney.
Case 19
After being jailed for over six weeks in pretrial detention for theft, a young man is punished with an additional six months in prison. The judge, prosecutor, and even his attorney emphasize that they hope the harsh sentence pushes him to move back to his former country of residence.
