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 28
A woman is sentenced to probation by summary proceeding, which a court-appointed attorney appealed. At trial, her lawyer is not present and she has to navigate her case without proper interpretation. The judge urges her to revoke the appeal, arguing that she has already received a lenient punishment for possession of a weapon banned in Germany. She judges her harshly based on her association with “the wrong crowd” and urges her to set a better example for her child.
Case 27
Shortly after a wave of populist outrage over a knife attack, a man convicted of attempted assault with a weapon based on little evidence appeals his sentence. At the appeal hearing, the environment is hostile, with the recent knife panic in the air: the defense is hindered from questioning witnesses while the judge and prosecutor cherry-pick testimony in an effort to justify continuing to jail the defendant pretrial, which would also facilitate his deportation. Even after a second appeal hearing does not reveal evidence sufficient to convict, the judge and prosecution insist on a high prison sentence, just two months short of his original one. The defendant is released after the second hearing because he has already served his sentence in pretrial detention.
Case 26
A young man is on trial for theft. During his trial, he is informed that his sentence will be high because he had a knife at the time, though the evidence does not show that it was used during the offense. The judge threatens the defendant with jail time. Without a lawyer to consult, he appears to have little choice but to accept the harsh sentence and put up with the judge’s insinuations that he steals for the purpose of reselling – just like unnamed “others” the judge refers to.
Case 24
The court hears a case in which a young man is accused of multiple charges, including drug, assault, and robbery charges, some of which involve a knife. After 6 hearings, mostly consisting of taking evidence from police witnesses, the young man is sentenced to prison and mandatory drug treatment for a total of almost 7 years. The court does not take into account victims’ actual needs: victims are instead asked leading questions to support a harsh punishment and are ridiculed by the court. The structural context of the defendant’s actions is largely absent from the proceedings.
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.