Case 2
| Case Number | 2 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | Yes |
| Interpreter Present | No |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
A young woman admits to having stolen a bag full of groceries and offers her apologies. Yet, the judge imposes a high fine, threatening the woman with prison in case she is convicted of another offense.
The “integration” discourse, which the defense strategy draws on in this case, makes structural conditions appear as though they could be easily overcome by individuals’ personal choices. This liberal “common sense” is reflected in the judge’s words and actions as well, making it seem as though the fact of the woman’s criminalization was a matter of attitude and character. In part because of this discourse, migrantized people in Germany are under constant pressure to prove that they are “worthy” – by showing, for instance, that they want to work and learn the language, otherwise the state will be harsh with them. In this case, the judge adds to this their specific expectations for migrantized mothers, who are all the more harshly scrutinized in cases we have seen, openly reprimanded for being “bad mothers”, even when their criminalization is embedded in structural conditions.
Even though the woman struggles to make ends meet, the judge sentences her to a high fine, which is only going to make things more difficult.
The defendant is a young mother whose sole income source is the job center. She has a lawyer who appears to have prepared a defense strategy for her: The lawyer talks about the difficult circumstances of her client, including war in her home country and difficulties trying to – as she puts it – “integrate” in Germany. She mentions that her client has been doing an integration course and that she already paid a so-called “Fangprämie” fine at the store where she was caught stealing. Then the woman speaks for herself.
The judge responds with an implied judgment regarding the woman’s abilities as a mother.
The judge then goes on to read the defendant’s record, which lists three prior convictions for theft. The lawyer notes that all of these convictions were by penal order (“Strafbefehl”), suggesting that her client might have had difficulties understanding their content and their significance as criminal convictions.
In her final statement, the woman reasserts that she is trying to learn German and wants to find work. The judge notes that the woman’s promise is now in writing and that, therefore, she will be sent to prison for the next offense. Her reasoning lays out that while the woman’s prior convictions spoke against her, the fact that she only stole groceries and not “luxury items” as well as her willingness to “integrate” and to work spoke for her.
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.
