Case 1
| Case Number | 1 |
| Charge | Fare Evasion |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
In this case, a woman with unclear residency and work permit status is tried in an accelerated procedure for three counts of fare evasion. Despite her financial hardship and lack of legal representation, the court imposes a hefty fine. The woman is subjected to repeated questioning about why she came to and resides in Germany, legally irrelevant to decide the case at hand.
Mobility should be a basic right, not a privilege, meaning that the defendant should not be criminalized for riding public transport without a ticket in the first place. By imposing a fine that clearly exceeds the defendant’s means, the court effectively criminalizes poverty and most likely exacerbates the very conditions that led to the offense. The court turns the woman’s inability to pay for a ticket into a question of morality, even accusing her of being a bad mother, which is a stereotype that racialized women specifically are confronted with regularly in courts, according to our observations. For the defendant, the conviction could also affect her ability to stay in the country. Punishment thus acts to enforce Germany’s border regime—and this judge appears to be a willing enforcer.
The accused woman has an interpreter but no legal representation. Throughout the trial, the judge questions her about her reasons for coming to and staying in Germany, despite this being irrelevant to the charges. The woman says that she receives some social benefits for herself and her children, and that a local social work organization assists her in managing her debts, including those from previous fare evasion convictions.
The judge appears skeptical about the woman’s story, questioning how she manages without speaking German and criticizes her for this. The woman explains that there is someone at the social work organization who helps her and will also assist her in buying a monthly ticket. She expresses willingness to pay the fine in installments, seemingly to show cooperation, but the court seems unmoved by her efforts. The judge reprimands her for her supposed moral “failings”, stating that she should not use public transport when she has debts. In his plea, the prosecutor announces that this will be the last time he proposes a fine, threatening the defendant with prison and suggesting that she would not be a good mother if she ended up in prison.
The prosecutor proposes a fine of 90 days at €10 each. The judge imposes 90 days but increases the daily rate to €15, adding up to a total fine of €1,350.
Cases from our archive
Case 34
A man faces trial for stealing a small quantity of food and alcohol. In cases involving substance use (including alcohol and other drugs), courts often want to hear that people facing trial have stopped using substances, are working, or otherwise trying to fit into society. While the defendant ticks all these boxes, and the judge seemingly acknowledges punishment will be counterproductive, she sentences him to a high fine anyway, ending by saying, “Those are the consequences of committing a crime. You should have thought of that at the time.”
Case 33
A man with precarious residence status and problems related to drug use is convicted of shoplifting items valued under €40. The court imposes a fine of almost €2,000 for theft with a weapon. Despite the judge’s hesitation about whether there actually was a weapon involved, she goes along with the prosecution’s recommended sentence, with serious financial implications and possible migration consequences for the defendant.
Case 32
After spending three nights in pretrial detention, a man faces accelerated proceedings on theft charges for stealing goods valued at about €50. He is sentenced to seven months prison as the prosecutor and judge see his repeated theft offenses as evidence not of his life challenges but rather the need for a harsh sentence. Joined by the person’s attorney, all seem to believe the best place for treatment is in prison.
Case 31
A young man who was unhoused and jailed pretrial is sentenced to pay €750 in fines for theft of food, toiletries, and other small items. Although the court acknowledged that he is experiencing problems related to drug use and poverty, the judge finds that the defendant should have simply “said no” to drugs. The sentence came with a warning that any future offense would lead to incarceration.
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.