Case 4
| Case Number | 4 |
| Charge | Fare Evasion |
| Defense Attorney Present | Yes |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Probation |
A young woman is sentenced to three years on probation for three counts of fare evasion. If she is caught without a train ticket again she faces multiple months in prison and likely loses her precarious job.
The court drew on a number of assumptions in this case to determine the question of intent, including the assumption that the woman was engaged in fraud because her client number was not on her monthly ticket, and the assumption she intended not to pay because she had been sentenced for the same offense before. These assumptions reflect prejudice on the part of the judge. During the trial, she acts as an extended arm of the job center (“Why aren’t you working more?”) as well as of the immigration authorities (“Why don’t you speak German?”), and her character judgments contribute to her harsh sentence, while the accused woman’s structural socio-economic situation is barely considered.
To our courtwatchers, the trial felt like a theatrical staging of judgment, especially as the judge and prosecutor gathered around the woman’s ticket, inspecting it, turning it over, and ultimately conjecturing that she may be committing fraud. Their conjecture also implied a kind of blanket suspicion of other, undefined “people” supposedly trying to cheat the system. By doing so, they tap into a racialized discourse around fraud, as politicians and media outlets in Germany stoke moral panics around migrantized people supposedly illegitimately laying claim to resources.
The person being tried is a young woman who works in a precarious job. The judge quizzes why she does not work more hours. She has children and explains that because of this she can only work limited hours. The year prior (possibly during the period of the alleged offenses) she was unemployed for multiple months.
She is accused of three counts of riding public transportation without a ticket. Her attorney explains that she had a monthly ticket but could not produce it when controlled on these occasions. Therefore she did not intend to commit an offense.
The judge and prosecutor spend time inspecting the monthly ticket the woman brought as evidence. They speculate that because her client number was not on the ticket she was cheating the system in some way. (“This is how people do it!”, says the prosecutor). The judge says that people do not throw away their transportation tickets and questions why the woman did not bring the other tickets to trial as well. The woman asks for forgiveness.
Her attorney defends the woman and notes that her client does not speak German (which is why she has trouble understanding as is also with an interpreter at trial). The judge asks why that is the case given the woman has been in Germany for many years and says it is clear to her the defendant intended not to pay for the train.
The prosecutor mentions the woman’s past offenses of riding the train without a ticket and argues that therefore there was intent in this case. The prosecutor notes the woman has a job and children and recommends a sentence of probation. Her attorney argues that she is “well integrated” (“in comparison to my other clients”) and that the court does not have evidence of intent not to pay. The judge sentences the woman to multiple months in prison, to be served as three years on probation. She explains the sentence as appropriate because the woman has a “positive social prognosis” since she works—though she works little, according to the judge, and will have to work more when her children are older.
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.
