Case 7
| Case Number | 7 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | No |
| Racialized Person | No |
| Outcome | Fine |
In this case, a young man still paying off past fines is sentenced to pay €600 for theft of a sandwich and some chocolate. While the court nods to the fact that he likely committed the offense because he does not have money, in the end the judge says theft is “not a solution”.
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.
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.
