Case 25
| Case Number | 25 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | No |
| Interpreter Present | No |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
Without a defendant or a lawyer present, the court issues a summary proceedings order, sentencing someone by mail for theft. The prosecution pushes for a harsh punishment and for retaining the charge “theft with a weapon” despite limited evidence of a weapon being present and without obtaining more evidence. Though the judge disagrees with the prosecution's original recommendation for a prison sentence, they sentence the defendant to a high fine of more than 1,300 Euros for stealing food.
Summary proceeding orders make up a large portion of criminal sentences and are often negotiated behind closed doors. In this case, we were able to observe the judge and prosecutor deliberate the summary proceedings order. The case shows how routine it is for courts to sentence people to very high fines with little information, putting them at risk of debt and prison for unpaid fines. It also shows how prosecutors enhance charges to include a weapon, even when the exact nature of the weapon or how and whether it was used is not fully known.
The defendant is absent, so the trial does not follow a regular procedure. Upon entering the courtroom, the judge immediately asks who the courtwatcher is, assuming that the defendant might have entered through the wrong door. When the courtwatcher identifies themselves as a visitor, the judge scoffs at the prosecutor, remarking, “Now we even get an audience for cases like this one”, but otherwise ignores them for the rest of the proceedings.
The charge is theft with a weapon. However, the judge considers a lesser charge, since the alleged theft only involved a small amount of food at a supermarket. The prosecutor, however, had previously discussed the case with a supervisor, who had requested a prison sentence rather than a fine. The alleged weapon is a pair of scissors, but the prosecutor notes that her case file does not include a photograph, so she says she is unsure whether it is a small pair of nail scissors or a larger item.
The judge expresses skepticism about the severity of the charge, stating that a prison sentence seems excessive. He asks the prosecutor to quickly reassess the case with the supervisor. The prosecutor leaves the room to make a call and returns with an adjusted request: a fine of 120 daily rates. The judge suggests reducing it to 90 instead. The prosecutor agrees, as long as the final charge explicitly mentions the weapon.
As the judge dictates the final order for the court record, he notes that the defendant stated during the arrest that they had no money for food. At no point does he raise the issue of whether the defendant would be able to pay the fine.
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
Court observations show: moral panic around “knife crime” fuels criminalization
Justice Collective
A closer look at criminal court cases involving knives reveals cases far away from the media image of violent attackers. To paint a more realistic picture, we offer case reports, analysis, and a discussion event.
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.