Case 17
| Case Number | 17 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
The court sentences an older woman to a hefty fine for theft from a supermarket. As the court hands down the sentence, court security moves in to arrest the woman. She has an outstanding warrant because of an unpaid fine on a prior case, for which they will take her to prison immediately.
The atmosphere in the courtroom is tense from the beginning. Our courtwatchers noticed that there is extra security personnel in the room but we did not understand why at first. The woman was not provided an attorney, which would usually mean that she does not face prison.
The trial illustrated the cruel violence of the criminal legal system. This struck us especially when we learned that all along the authorities in the room knew that the woman was about to be handcuffed and taken to prison. The judge sentenced her knowing she likely will spend time in prison for this case as well when she is unable to pay her fines.
In this case, Justice Collective was able to intervene and pay her fine and court costs so that she could avoid prison. While we spent nearly two hours navigating the paperwork and lining up funding, the woman was held by police without an interpreter.
An older woman arrives at her hearing with her adult son in the audience. She moved to Germany some years ago and says she receives social benefits as income. She is accused of stealing from a grocery store. The hearing takes place without a defense attorney, and the interpreter translates intermittently.
To start, the judge questions the woman about how to spell her name (“sometimes we get aliases”), whether she is learning German, and why she came to Germany. The judge says that the defendant’s stated reason, fleeing domestic violence, is not sufficient reason to come to Germany. (The judge’s claim is false. Some time before this trial, the European Court of Justice ruled that women fleeing gender-based violence are in fact entitled to asylum.)
As the hearing turns to the allegations, the defendant confesses that she did take the items. She says that she was not in a good state of mind at the time and that she does not remember what happened exactly but that she did not mean to steal. She also assures the judge that it will not happen again.
The judge sentences the woman to a fine of close to €1,000, significantly higher than asked for by the prosecutor. In her justification for the sentence, the judge says that she does not believe the woman to have shown accountability for the offense.
There is confusion as the judge also asks the woman whether she wants to appeal the sentence and she seemingly responds yes, although it is unclear whether the interpreter has fully translated the question. The woman’s son intervenes from the audience to explain to her what is being asked and suggests she does not want to appeal.
As this interaction takes place, the judge informs the defendant that she is not free to go home today. The woman has not paid all of her fine from her prior offense and has outstanding court costs. She faces close to a month in prison. Court security personnel move in to arrest the woman. The interpreter again has not fully translated what has just been said, leaving the woman visibly confused and in distress.
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.
