Someone breaking the criminal law for the first time deserves a measure of leniency from the criminal justice system, rather than being saddled with a punishment and a permanent criminal record. That, at least, is the view held by proponents of a more humane approach to criminal law, who argue that minor theft and other low-level offenses should be reclassified as regulatory offenses — pointing out that a criminal record functions, in practice, as a lifelong stigma.
Eleonora (name changed), like many others, made a mistake: while going through a genuinely difficult period in her life and under considerable stress, she committed, for the first time, an offense she would go on to regret and reproach herself for many times over. She came to our law firm hoping for help, already holding a penal order (German: Strafbefehl) in hand. Under it, she had been sentenced to a fine of 1,200 euros — 80 day-fines (Tagessätze) of 15 euros each — over a charge of minor theft at a branch of a large retail chain. The stolen items were a pair of women’s earrings and some facial skincare products, together worth roughly 90 euros.
Where a penal order is issued without a hearing, the person concerned has two weeks to file an objection against it. Already during the initial consultation, our lawyer explained in detail to the client how an objection works and whether it made sense to file one. Having heard her out, the lawyer explained her chances of getting the fine reduced or the case discontinued for minor significance. There was no question of arguing the client was innocent — the case file even included witnesses — but there was a strong chance of resolving the matter with minimal negative consequences, and the client asked us to take on her case.
We first requested the case file, which contained a fairly brief description of what had happened. According to it, the young woman had spent a long time in the shop browsing jewelry and skincare products, before discreetly placing the items on offer into her jacket pocket. A store detective had observed the entire sequence.
Under German law, the mere act of placing unpaid goods among one’s personal belongings already constitutes theft. Even so, store detectives typically take a wait-and-see approach — observing without intervening until the person is about to leave the store. This is done to gather the necessary evidence, making it easier to prove the offense later. The person is only stopped once they have walked past the checkout without paying and are heading for the exit. It’s also worth noting that many people, for convenience, carry a bag and place items in it that they fully intend to pay for at the register — a habit we would strongly advise our readers to avoid, since no one is immune to simple forgetfulness. Cases like this are far from rare at our firm.
In Eleonora’s case, it wasn’t a bag but the pockets of her own jacket — which, admittedly, made the case harder for us, since it reads as unusual behavior. The detective therefore watched her with extra attention the entire time she was in the store, and once she walked past the checkout without paying, she was stopped without delay. She returned all the items on the spot, but the police were still called, and they duly recorded the offense.
On behalf of and in the interest of our client, the lawyer filed an objection against the penal order.
Filing an objection automatically moves the case into ordinary proceedings: a trial hearing is scheduled, and the court decides whether to impose a sentence or discontinue the case. There is also, however, the option of discontinuing the case in writing under §153a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung — StPO), which can secure a more favorable outcome for the client without the stress of being summoned for questioning and appearing at a hearing — an unpleasant prospect for anyone.
Our lawyer emphasized that the total value of the stolen items was quite small. What’s more, the shop suffered no actual loss, since the items were returned in their original, resalable condition. It was also noted that the client had no prior record and had committed the offense for the first time — heavily influenced by a depressive state brought on by difficult life circumstances, including a divorce, job loss, and other personal hardships. Legally speaking, of course, this argument carries limited weight, but we are all human, and sometimes disclosing facts like these can influence the final outcome. Our lawyer also pointed out that the client was not in a position to pay: she was living on state benefits and could not afford the 1,200-euro fine. On this basis, the lawyer proposed reducing the fine to 400 euros.
Having reviewed the legal position presented, the public prosecutor’s office agreed to discontinue the case under §153a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung — StPO), reducing the fine to the amount our lawyer had proposed — payable by the client over four months.
Our client was extremely pleased. She paid the fine, and shortly afterward received notice that the case against her had been finally and fully discontinued. In the end, she avoided a criminal record altogether, and the fine was reduced as far as it could be — which, naturally, mattered a great deal to her. Anyone can make a mistake in life, and where minor offenses are concerned, there is at least something to the argument made by proponents of a more humane criminal justice system: that someone who has broken the law for the first time deserves a chance to make amends and return to a normal life. Eleonora made the only right decision available to her in that situation — she sought a lawyer’s help — and her case was resolved quickly and, most importantly, without the one consequence she feared most: a criminal record that could have followed her for the rest of her life.
All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.
