We see in this case how even when judges claim to be empathetic to a person’s circumstances, they punish harshly, declining to exercise discretion in a meaningful way. In the end, despite the judge purporting to understand the woman was in difficult circumstances, including experiencing homelessness at the time she confessed to distributing drugs, he fines her severely. The high fine exacerbates the woman’s precarious position just as she is about to start a new training course. The judge’s insistence that charging a daily rate of €15 is low is out of step with the law and practice, since lower daily rates are not altogether uncommon, and even the Berlin prosecutor’s office has suggested limiting daily rates to €5 for people receiving Bürgergeld: He could have charged her way less.

Another aspect we observed in this case is the hostility police officers show to people they interact with. They approach the woman with prejudice and a complete lack of respect, testifying: “when we talk to people like this they usually tell the same stories”. We do not know who they mean by “people like this” but we do learn that they believed her to be living in her car. Seemingly, the police assume people living in situations like hers to be dishonest. We also learned from the defense team that the woman had faced harassment from the police that evening, which is not discussed during the trial but would not be surprising in light of the facts of the case and the police’s actions in court.

The proceedings begin with the court asking for some background information about the defendant. She is a young woman who currently receives Bürgergeld and is planning to start a training program soon, for which she has an offer. At the time of the offense, she was experiencing homelessness.

She is being accused of distributing a so-called “hard” drug from her car, where she is controlled and found with a small amount of money and a small quantity of drugs. When asked to respond to the allegations, she confesses to the charges. “Why?”, asks the judge. She says she was in a dire situation, unhoused at the time. The judge asks whether the car she was found in was hers. She replies that it was not and belonged to an acquaintance.

A police officer testifies as the first witness. He says he was on patrol that night when he saw the accused get out of her car, meet someone, and exchange something for money. He says that he wanted to approach her but he was on foot and therefore called for backup. He observed the woman get back in her car and drive away. The judge asks follow up questions, including whether it appeared the woman was living in her car. To this the officer replies, “when we talk to people like this, they usually tell the same stories.” He does not share anything about what he observed about the car and whether it appeared she was living in it.

Next, a second officer is called to the stand. He was called as backup by the first witness and tracked down the woman in his car. The police testifies that the woman was cooperative, confessed, and allegedly consented to be searched. As a result of the officer finding drugs and money (and her confession), she was arrested. Here again the judge asks if the police observed that she was in a precarious financial situation. This officer replies that she was homeless and living in the car that he stopped her in.

The proceedings turn to hear sentencing recommendations, starting with the prosecutor. She argues that despite the woman’s hardship, she should be fined €1,800 (120 days at €15/day) because she supplied a “hard drug”. The woman’s lawyer points out that the offense was some time ago and that she did not before or after have any police contact. He stresses that she is expecting to start an apprenticeship, an arrangement which could be compromised if she receives a sentence high enough to appear on her Certificate of Good Conduct. He also notes that the daily rate for the fine (€15/day) is too high given that the woman receives Bürgergeld.

In the end, the judge lands on a lower total fine amount than the prosecutor but still charges a high daily rate. The judge’s sentence is just at the threshold and will not appear in the woman’s Certificate of Good Conduct. He specifically responds to the defense’s argument about the daily rate and argues that €15 is in the lower range for people receiving Bürgergeld – which is, in fact, not true.