Case 10
| Case Number | 10 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
In a trial lasting five minutes, a couple, relatively new to Germany and seeking asylum, are sentenced to a €200 fine for theft of about €30 of food items.
One can see the assembly-line nature of the sentencing of low-level cases: This trial lasted only five minutes; the two people tried have no attorney and seemingly not-so-accurate interpretation. The judge’s recitation of the proportionality of the fine seems pro forma rather than deeply considered; she also does not follow up with the defendants’ request for a payment plan. In the end, the judge sentences them to €200, which is nearly half of the couple’s monthly income (and they have a child). If they do not pay, they will be jailed.
Here too, the motivation for stealing food is completely ignored. With a total monthly income of €500, the couple and child each have €5.55 to spend per day. This must be used to pay not only for food, but also for other needs outside of their rent. In calculating the standard rate for Bürgergeld, the legislator assumes that an adult needs at least €6.42 per day, and children between €3.85 and €5.03, for food alone. At the same time, human rights organizations as well as the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have criticized this sum (which is more than the couple has) as insufficient. The additional fine only exacerbates the family’s situation. The judge also completely ignores the fact that the fine inevitably also punishes the family’s child.
One of our courtwatchers noted that the woman being tried appeared defiant. This was her first case so she could not have been too familiar with what to expect but perhaps she already had a keen sense for the injustice of the punishment system.
A couple is charged with theft of food items valued at €30. While they are provided with an interpreter, they do not have the assistance of counsel.
The judge asks the couple if they would like to say anything about the allegations. The woman says that they are very sorry and that they had no money, adding that it will not happen again. There is a bit of confusion over exactly which government source their income is from; we learn that the couple receives approximately €500/month for themselves and their child.
Based on this quick exchange, the prosecutor suggests a fine of €200. The accused woman asks if they can pay on a payment plan because they do not have any money with them today. The judge responds that they will not be required to pay today and will receive a bill in the mail. She then confirms the sentence as €200 fine, dismissing the couple.
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.