Case 20
| Case Number | 20 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
Three young defendants are summoned to fast-track proceedings (Schnellgericht) for a low-level theft case. Because the court has not lined up an interpreter for one of them, he will not be heard and instead will be sentenced with summary proceedings (Strafbefehl), meaning he will receive his sentence in the mail. After a quick hearing, the other two are each punished with €600 fines.
As with many cases we observe, the judge takes procedural shortcuts that have significant negative impacts. Though he appeared in court, the third defendant (D3) is not provided an opportunity to testify in a full trial, because the court failed to line up the correct translator and now refuses to do so. The judge also assesses that both of the others should pay €15/day of punishment – even though, since they are asylum seekers, they likely have very limited, if any, cash benefits. The court should have asked additional questions about their finances and set lower fines but did not. These procedural shortcuts show how supposedly “neutral” policies and practices facilitate the court acting as part of the border regime: The judge sentences harshly and expresses hope that all three young men will leave the country.
The case begins with back and forth over interpretation. One interpreter is present for all three defendants, who are accused of participating together in low-level theft of clothing valued at approximately €150. However, only two of the three young men speak the same language and while the interpreter is able to communicate with the third defendant (D3) to some extent, he is not certified to handle interpretation into this language as well..
The judge, prosecutor, and interpreter deliberate about what to do and decide that rather than postpone the case and get an additional interpreter, they will sentence D3 via summary proceedings. D3 is able to communicate to the court that he plans to leave Germany and return to his home country within a few weeks and the judge expresses hope that the summary proceedings order reaches him by mail before his departure.
Once this sentence has been decided, the case moves on to the other two defendants. Both are young and have been in Germany for a short time and do not have work permits. They confess to the allegations of theft, and after a brief exchange about what items exactly D1 was responsible for taking, the judge ends the questioning. Both are sentenced to fines of 40 days at €15/day for a total fine of €600 each, which the judge explains as “sufficient” because they might leave the country. It is unclear why the judge assumes this.
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.
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.