Despite our courtwatchers overhearing conversations between the judge and defense attorney before the trial, some things remain unclear, including whether or how well the woman being tried could understand the interpreter (who came from a different country and did not say much) and the details of her employment situation. We therefore do not know whether she has any income at all at the time of her trial. Her lawyer appeared largely passive and did not seem to bring out arguments or raise issues.

To comprehend the structural circumstances of this case, we need to take some background information into account. The accused woman is from a country recently designated as “safe” by Germany in asylum procedures—a designation that was widely criticized. This means that if she is applying for asylum (which is unclear in this case), she will have most likely lost her permission to work. Either this is the case, or she continues to be employed as a seasonal worker in a precarious sector that is notorious for recruiting underpaid labor from outside Germany. In either scenario, the woman’s life in Germany is shaped by racist structures—be they of overexploitation or of exclusion—, which make it almost impossible for her to secure her livelihood legally.

In court, discussions of people’s circumstances that may shed light on structural inequities are always fleeting. If the court dug deeper, it may have to confront the futility and injustice of the punishment. In this case, the court learns about the woman’s precarious employment situation, which provides the backdrop for the multiple counts of theft that she is charged with. Yet, this does not move the court’s assessment in any meaningful way. In the end, the judge sentences her harshly anyway.

The court observation began with the pretrial conferencing, during which the judge and defense attorney, joking with each other, go through the files together to agree to hear all the charges that day. Before the woman walks in, the judge also confers with the attorney about his client’s financial situation, who says the defendant is not working anymore.

Then, a young woman enters, who is the defendant in this case. She shares that she is currently working a minimum wage job and that she is sorry for the offenses. Her attorney does not offer much in her defense and agrees with the prosecutor’s suggested sentence of three years of probation, convertible to nine months in prison if she violates probation. The judge adopts this high sentence and briefly justifies it by saying that despite her confession being a mitigating factor, the value of the goods taken was high.