This case is a near textbook example of how poverty is criminalized and how criminalization entrenches poverty. The judge sentences the man to a very high fine even though he relies on public benefits and is living at subsistence level. In addition, he is already financially burdened by previous fines. The judge does not question why the defendant might have such a large number of previous convictions and why the previous fines have not stopped him from committing further offenses.

The judge’s reasoning is particularly noteworthy. Although she implies that she finds herself in a dilemma arising from the reality of poverty and the state’s simultaneous demand for the protection of private property, she still blames the defendant for this (“You aren’t making it easy for me.”) and in the very next sentence distances herself rhetorically (“What can one do?”) from her own judgment.

Together with the previous fines, it will take the defendant at least 33 months to pay off all his fines. This is based on the court’s assumption that he can spend up to a third of his monthly public benefits on installments. In practice this means that for almost three years he will live way under subsistence level.

The trial is held as a so-called fast-track proceeding (beschleunigtes Verfahren) and only takes five minutes. Following the announcement of the verdict, the judge also urges that the next hearing be held quickly. The defendant is not represented by a lawyer and admits to the offense. He faces down during the entire trial and does not make use of his right to explain himself and his situation in a plea.

He is a middle-aged white man with German citizenship and has an adult child. He receives public benefits (Bürgergeld) and is accused of attempting to steal food worth under €5 from a supermarket. The food was returned to the store after he was caught. The judge describes the incident as part of a series of other thefts and fare evasion over a period of almost 30 years. The man has recently been fined twice for fare evasion, for a total of over €2,000.

The prosecutor admits that the theft was for a small amount and says that the defendant’s confession speaks for him but that the previous convictions speak against him. The prosecutor then demands a very high sentence of 140 days of punishment at €15/day.

The judge follows the prosecutor’s request and sentences the man to a total fine of €2,100. She begins her reasoning by emphasizing the man’s personal responsibility: “You aren’t making it easy. What can one do?” She also mentions the low value of the food, but above all stresses the man’s previous convictions. She justifies the high number of days by stating that, in view of the previous fines imposed, she has no choice but to make the current sentence even more severe.