While the punishment system affects migrantized and racialized people especially, it systematically targets all those affected by poverty more broadly. In this case, a white German man is punished for not having enough money to pay for food. Even though the judge acknowledges that this is the reason for the theft, the system insists that the man must be punished. There is a cruel irony in the judge suggesting that theft is not a solution: What solution does punishment provide for people being unable to afford basic necessities? This next fine will increase the defendant’s monthly payments to almost half of his monthly income. This also increases the likelihood of him having to rely on theft as a survival strategy, and of him being jailed for not being able to pay (Ersatzfreiheitsstrafe).

At the same time, though the person is punished harshly, we did notice some ways in which this person, as a white German, was treated differently–indeed a bit favorably–as compared to cases against racialized and migrantized people. For example, we almost never see the court apply €10 per day of punishment, even for people who have incomes lower than Bürgergeld, such as asylum seekers. According to the law, fines should be calibrated to people’s financial circumstances but are generally too high for low-income people, with the court usually assessing €15/day for people receiving Bürgergeld, or almost their entire daily income. In this case, the court went down to €10. The judge noting that a lack of money probably played a role in the theft is also more understanding than most defendants can expect.

The trial is over within minutes, with the judge asking the defendant (who does not have an attorney) a few quick questions about the theft of a sandwich and some chocolate from a supermarket.

The defendant adds that he is already paying fines on three past offenses, in installments that take up 40% of his Bürgergeld income.

The judge confirms the prosecutor’s suggested sentence of a fine of €600 (60 days at €10/day), explaining that the theft was “a dumb thing” and that though the defendant did not have money, theft was not a solution. She adds that his past offenses–the ones he still owes fines on–are weighed in the sentencing.