Switch language

Menu

Summary

The court sentences an older woman to a hefty fine for theft from a supermarket. As the court hands down the sentence, court security moves in to arrest the woman. She has an outstanding warrant because of an unpaid fine on a prior case, for which they will take her to prison immediately.

Commentary

The atmosphere in the courtroom is tense from the beginning. Our courtwatchers noticed that there is extra security personnel in the room but we did not understand why at first. The woman was not provided an attorney, which would usually mean that she does not face prison.

The trial illustrated the cruel violence of the criminal legal system. This struck us especially when we learned that all along the authorities in the room knew that the woman was about to be handcuffed and taken to prison. The judge sentenced her knowing she likely will spend time in prison for this case as well when she is unable to pay her fines.

In this case, Justice Collective was able to intervene and pay her fine and court costs so that she could avoid prison. While we spent nearly two hours navigating the paperwork and lining up funding, the woman was held by police without an interpreter.

Report

An older woman arrives at her hearing with her adult son in the audience. She moved to Germany some years ago and says she receives social benefits as income. She is accused of stealing from a grocery store. The hearing takes place without a defense attorney, and the interpreter translates intermittently.

To start, the judge questions the woman about how to spell her name (“sometimes we get aliases”), whether she is learning German, and why she came to Germany. The judge says that the defendant’s stated reason, fleeing domestic violence, is not sufficient reason to come to Germany. (The judge’s claim is false. Some time before this trial, the European Court of Justice ruled that women fleeing gender-based violence are in fact entitled to asylum.)

As the hearing turns to the allegations, the defendant confesses that she did take the items. She says that she was not in a good state of mind at the time and that she does not remember what happened exactly but that she did not mean to steal. She also assures the judge that it will not happen again.

The judge sentences the woman to a fine of close to €1,000, significantly higher than asked for by the prosecutor. In her justification for the sentence, the judge says that she does not believe the woman to have shown accountability for the offense.

There is confusion as the judge also asks the woman whether she wants to appeal the sentence and she seemingly responds yes, although it is unclear whether the interpreter has fully translated the question. The woman’s son intervenes from the audience to explain to her what is being asked and suggests she does not want to appeal.

As this interaction takes place, the judge informs the defendant that she is not free to go home today. The woman has not paid all of her fine from her prior offense and has outstanding court costs. She faces close to a month in prison. Court security personnel move in to arrest the woman. The interpreter again has not fully translated what has just been said, leaving the woman visibly confused and in distress.

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.

Knife Panic
Probation
Theft

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.

Knife Panic
Enforcing Borders
Prison
Assault

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.

Knife Panic
Enforcing Borders
Probation
Theft

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.

Knife Panic
Criminalizing Poverty
Fine
Theft

Perspectives