Case 30
| Case Number | 30 |
| Charge | Theft |
| Defense Attorney Present | Yes |
| Interpreter Present | No |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
A man is tried for stealing clothing. Because of his past criminal record from years ago, the court argues that the man is “falling back into familiar habits” by stealing. Despite acknowledging his substance use issues as contributing to his earlier theft charges and his current difficult personal circumstances, the court imposes a high fine and orders restitution.
The court stigmatizes the defendant based on years-old prior offenses for theft, which according to the defense attorney were as a result of his client’s substance use issues at the time. Seemingly assuming that the defendant’s current difficulties likely induced him to use drugs again and that’s why he is stealing, the court jumps to conclusions to justify a harsh sentence.
The court understands criminalized behaviour as a side effect of substance use, which it pathologizes, rather than a public health issue that is driven by complex factors, including economic inequality. By imposing a hefty fine on the defendant, who already has financial difficulties, the court entrenches the person’s circumstances.
The defendant faces charges for stealing clothing valued at just under €50. When the court inquires about his income and life circumstances, he explains that he supports his wife who is undergoing cancer treatment and that he lives primarily off of public benefits (Bürgergeld) and income from a part-time job (Minijob).
After the charges are read, the man admits to the theft and explains that he intended the clothes as a gift to his hospitalized wife, hoping to bring her comfort during a difficult time. He explains that things have been difficult for him emotionally and financially, that he is in debt and recently lost his job. He says he cannot explain why he stole the clothes and that he had not stolen anything since recovering from substance use issues almost 20 years ago.
The prosecutor argues that stealing clothing is not justified by the defendant’s financial struggles. He suggests as a sentence a fine of almost €2,000 and restitution for the value of stolen items. He says although he admitted to the charge, he could not offer a clear explanation why he stole. The defendant accepts responsibility and uses his chance to speak to apologize to the court.
The court sentences the man to a fine of €1,500. The judge notes the defendant's drug use history and acknowledges that most past offenses happened long ago. However, she interprets the current case as a return to old patterns of drug use and theft under pressure. For the court, this supports imposing a high fine.
Cases from our archive
Case 34
A man faces trial for stealing a small quantity of food and alcohol. In cases involving drug use, courts often want to hear that people facing trial have stopped using drugs, 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 substance use issues 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 his substance 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.
