Case 12
| Case Number | 12 |
| Charge | Fare Evasion |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | No |
| Racialized Person | No |
| Outcome | Fine |
A man is sentenced to a €1,800 fine for multiple counts of fare evasion. He has no lawyer and seems to fear that he will be sent to prison after the trial.
Each year in Germany, between 8000 and 9000 people are sent to prison for riding public transport without a ticket. This is because many cannot afford to buy a ticket in the first place, receive a civil fine from the transit authority which they cannot afford, and are then charged with a criminal offense, often resulting in high fines, as in this case. People who are unable to pay for a criminal fine are sent to prison with a so-called Ersatzfreiheitsstrafe (EFS).
In this case, it is unclear whether the defendant knows that even though he is sentenced to a fine, he could nevertheless end up in prison because of EFS. The fine is more than three times the regular rate of social benefits, and his previous convictions for fare evasion suggest that he has had difficulties affording a monthly ticket in the past (though he had one at the time of the sentencing). Even at €9, the “social ticket” for social benefit recipients is not affordable for everyone, though the judge seems to assume this. The very high fine to which the man is sentenced effectively punishes poverty and will further increase his economic precarity.
A man enters the courtroom in jeans and a light jacket. He seems unsure of himself and at times during the trial it is unclear whether he can follow the proceedings. He states that he has applied for early retirement due to an impairment, but currently receives Bürgergeld. He has no lawyer and sits isolated in the courtroom with his head bowed forward.
He is accused of riding public transport without a ticket a total of six times over a period of just over a year. During the hearing of evidence, he says that he has nothing to say, he simply forgot his ticket. The judge asks if he now has a monthly pass, which the defendant confirms, showing it to the judge and prosecutor. After briefly discussing the man’s personal information, the court turns to his previous convictions: There have been “quite a few” since 2003, the judge remarks, and only reads out the most recent ones: one sentence for fare evasion eight years ago, and another one four years ago.
In his plea, the prosecutor considers the man’s statement and the fact that he now has a monthly ticket to speak in favor of the defendant, while the previous convictions speak against him. He demands a fine of 120 days at €15. Since there is no lawyer to plead for the defendant, the judge merely asks him for his last words. He has nothing to say and then there is a break. After a while, the defendant asks, seemingly anxious: “But I can go home afterwards?” The judge replies with a smile: “Yes, you can go home with your monthly ticket.” She hands down a sentence in line with the prosecutor’s plea, at a total of €1,800, explaining her reasoning: “It’s great that you now have a monthly pass. Please keep it that way. You can manage the €9, even from your early retirement pension.” She concludes the hearing, saying: “Thank you, that’s it.” The man stands up, turns around and leaves the room. He smiles, seemingly relieved.
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.
