Switch language

Menu

Court observations show: moral panic around “knife crime” fuels criminalization

Justice Collective

Police carrying out searches on people standing next to a wall

Over the last years, German media and politicians have increasingly advanced narratives connecting migrants and rising violent crime. One narrative in particular, that of migrants being responsible for a wave of knife crime, has recently gained traction, partly in response to the tragic events in Solingen (2024) and Aschaffenburg (2025). These individual acts of violence have fueled a moral panic around knife crime, weaponized to justify increasingly stricter migration policy for immigrants at-large. But “knife crime” is not a well-defined category, and contrary to what reporting on such cases suggests, violent crime in Germany remains low. Indeed, a closer look at criminal court cases involving knives reveals cases far away from the media image of violent attackers.

In court, the reality of criminal cases involving knives provides a sharp contrast to media portrayals, which often exaggerate their severity to fit racist narratives. Based on our court observations, we have added new case reports to our case archive that document the phenomenon of what we describe as the knife panic. Read our full analysis of the phenomenon here, in the most recent addition to our findings.

To further discuss our reports and findings and connect them to on-the-ground concerns of impacted communities and activists, we are also organizing an event together with Ihr seid keine Sicherheit (ISKS) on May 21 at Café Cralle in Berlin. Find the full details below.

What is “Knife Crime”? – Discussion on the Weapon Prohibition Zone at Leopoldplatz

When? Wednesday, May 21, 19:30

Where? Café Cralle, Hochstädter Str. 10a

What? Info event and discussion

Right-wing and conservative actors deliberately use the term “knife crime” to criminalize racialized communities and justify extensive police measures and harsh penalties. One of the latest measures introduced amidst the populist panic about “knife crime” is the establishment of weapon prohibition zones.

While the police claim that increased checks for knives in these zones will ensure safety for all, the new rules primarily create one thing: a pretext for using “suspicion-independent checks” in a racially discriminatory way.

What does “knife crime” really mean? Who is being protected, who is affected – and who becomes a target for the police?

Together with Ihr seid keine Sicherheit, we invite you to a critical discussion about the newly established weapon prohibition zone at Leopoldplatz.

We want to talk with people from the neighborhood about what safety at Leo means to us – and why the new knife bans might cause more harm than good.

The event will be in German. Write us a message on Instagram if you would need a whisper translation.

Join us – bring your experiences, perspectives, and questions!

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