Case 10
| Case Number | 10 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
In a trial lasting five minutes, a couple, relatively new to Germany and seeking asylum, are sentenced to a €200 fine for theft of about €30 of food items.
One can see the assembly-line nature of the sentencing of low-level cases: This trial lasted only five minutes; the two people tried have no attorney and seemingly not-so-accurate interpretation. The judge’s recitation of the proportionality of the fine seems pro forma rather than deeply considered; she also does not follow up with the defendants’ request for a payment plan. In the end, the judge sentences them to €200, which is nearly half of the couple’s monthly income (and they have a child). If they do not pay, they will be jailed.
Here too, the motivation for stealing food is completely ignored. With a total monthly income of €500, the couple and child each have €5.55 to spend per day. This must be used to pay not only for food, but also for other needs outside of their rent. In calculating the standard rate for Bürgergeld, the legislator assumes that an adult needs at least €6.42 per day, and children between €3.85 and €5.03, for food alone. At the same time, human rights organizations as well as the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have criticized this sum (which is more than the couple has) as insufficient. The additional fine only exacerbates the family’s situation. The judge also completely ignores the fact that the fine inevitably also punishes the family’s child.
One of our courtwatchers noted that the woman being tried appeared defiant. This was her first case so she could not have been too familiar with what to expect but perhaps she already had a keen sense for the injustice of the punishment system.
A couple is charged with theft of food items valued at €30. While they are provided with an interpreter, they do not have the assistance of counsel.
The judge asks the couple if they would like to say anything about the allegations. The woman says that they are very sorry and that they had no money, adding that it will not happen again. There is a bit of confusion over exactly which government source their income is from; we learn that the couple receives approximately €500/month for themselves and their child.
Based on this quick exchange, the prosecutor suggests a fine of €200. The accused woman asks if they can pay on a payment plan because they do not have any money with them today. The judge responds that they will not be required to pay today and will receive a bill in the mail. She then confirms the sentence as €200 fine, dismissing the couple.
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.