What is carelessness (Leichtsinn)? A German dictionary explains the term roughly as follows: thoughtless, frivolous, unconsidered behavior in word and deed. In a second sense: fickleness, a lack of moral firmness and rigor in one’s conduct. Synonyms for “Leichtsinn” include thoughtlessness, heedlessness, light-heartedness, fickleness, silliness, rashness and others.
It might seem perfectly clear: being careless means taking things lightly, without burdening yourself with problems. But it isn’t that simple. Often enough, the people around a careless person — relatives, friends, colleagues — become the victims of that carelessness. More often, though, it is the careless person who suffers most from it. Some writers claim that carelessness is freedom. But freedom from what? Above all, from responsibility.
We do not, however, want to delve too deeply into the nature of carelessness. What interests us is its other side: the liability that can arise from it. Criminal law knows the concept of “criminal recklessness” as one of the forms of negligent guilt: a person acts negligently if they foresaw that their act (or omission) could have socially dangerous consequences but, without sufficient grounds, carelessly trusted that they would be able to prevent those consequences.
The heroine of our story — let’s call her Marina — and her friends (later co-accused in the criminal proceedings) gave none of this a thought. What’s more, they considered their behavior right and … amusing.
But let’s take things one at a time. Marina’s father came to our law firm for help. Criminal proceedings had been opened against his daughter and two of her friends under two provisions of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB): for theft (Diebstahl) under § 242 and for criminal damage to property (Sachbeschädigung) under § 303. After listening to the worried father, the lawyer suggested speaking with Marina herself in order to get the information first-hand, so to speak. The lawyer spoke with the young woman by phone, since she lived in another German city and could not travel to meet him in person. Marina told the lawyer the following story.
She and two of her friends had met two young men on a social network. They set up a group chat together and were in constant contact — these days, for young people, this kind of communication replaces not only meeting in person but phone calls too. One evening the group arranged to meet up and go to a nightclub. They agreed on where the young men would “pick up” the young women (one of the men had a car). When the young men arrived, they were already tipsy — they had been drinking beer; on the way to the club, they all drank some more together. When they got to the club, they parked, and Marina and one of her friends jumped out of the car “for a moment,” leaving their things inside (the first sign of carelessness). When the young women came back to the car, it was already locked, and their acquaintances had gone on ahead. Having caught up with them, the young women said they needed to go back to the car — their handbags, with their money inside, were still there. The car’s owner, however, did not want to go back, yet he did not offer to pay for the young women’s entry and evening at the club either. Their third friend paid instead (again a sign of carelessness on the part of all three). But the problem was solved, and everyone was happy. They drank beer and danced. Their driver kept pace with them. But nobody cared about that (yet another example of carelessness). When the night was drawing to a close, the young men suggested the young women “wrap things up here” while they fetched the car and brought it round. The young women had to wait about 20 minutes. When the young men pulled up, the friends got in, and Marina immediately reached into her handbag to pay back her friend. The 80 euros that had been in her wallet were gone. Her friend’s money was missing too. Naturally, the young women directed all their accusations at the young men — when they left, they had locked the car, and now they had been alone in it for 20 minutes. The young men said they had seen nothing and taken nothing. The young women demanded that the car stop. The driver pulled into a parking lot in front of a café and stopped. One of the young women then pulled the key out of the ignition, and all three jumped out of the car and took refuge in the café. From there they texted the driver that they would return the key as soon as they got their money back.
We will spare you the exchange of messages between the two sides. Suffice it to say that after a while the young women did come out of the café, hid the key in the bushes and approached the car. The argument flared up again. Marina remembered taking the key out from under the bush and giving it to her friend, who hid it again. Some other young men joined them who were “keen to help sort things out.” By then the young women were exhausted and wanted to sleep. So they handed (!!!) the car key to one of the strangers who were “helping to sort things out” — on his word of honor that he would give the key to the car’s owner only after they had left. That was the height of carelessness!
A few hours later they received a text from the car’s owner saying that nobody had returned the key to him. Naturally, he told his parents, and they filed a criminal complaint (Strafanzeige) with the police against all three young women for theft and for damaging the car — someone had left a scratch on the car’s fender.
The lawyer applied to the public prosecutor’s office (Staatsanwaltschaft) responsible for his client’s place of residence for access to the case file (Akteneinsicht). He needed to establish to what extent his client — according to the investigation file — had been involved in the offense she was accused of. Once he had received the file, the lawyer studied it carefully and found that his client’s name appeared only very rarely in the case documents — whether in the injured party’s statements or in those of the other witnesses. The file showed no coordination whatsoever in the actions of those involved — everything happened spontaneously and chaotically. All of them gave confused, emotional statements full of digressions. Yet § 242 StGB defines the offense of theft unambiguously: whoever takes movable property belonging to another from another person with the intent of unlawfully appropriating it to themselves or a third party. This definition in no way matched our client’s conduct. Criminal law knows the concept of participation in an offense. Under § 25 StGB, joint perpetration (Mittäterschaft) exists where two or more persons intentionally commit an intentional offense together. This means that those involved do not act independently; each takes on a specific role. It was in exactly this capacity that our client was treated in the case file.
The lawyer drew up an application to the public prosecutor’s office to discontinue the proceedings against his client on the grounds set out in § 170 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO) — lack of involvement in the offense. In his reasoning, the lawyer pointed out to the prosecutor’s office that his client could not have been a joint perpetrator of the offense, as the entire file indicated — her name was mentioned only very rarely. Those involved merely stated that she had been present at the scene, had held the car key only very briefly and had passed it on immediately. For the same reasons, the damage to the car could not be attributed to her either. According to the file, a small scratch on the car’s fender had been made with the ignition key. Our client had merely held the key briefly and passed it on immediately. Consequently, she could not have damaged the car.
The lawyer recommended that the public prosecutor’s office open criminal proceedings against the car’s owner for driving under the influence (Trunkenheit im Verkehr, § 316 StGB) — there was sufficient evidence for this. He also recommended proceedings for the theft of the money that the driver and his friend had taken from our client’s handbag (§ 242 StGB).
The criminal proceedings against our client were discontinued on the grounds set out in § 170 Abs. 2 StPO — lack of involvement in the offense.
In conclusion: at just 20, Marina has already come to the attention of the law enforcement authorities more than once. But thanks to the skillful and timely action of the lawyer her father turns to for help, she keeps getting off lightly, as the saying goes. What is regrettable is that the young woman herself learns nothing from life. She continues to treat the people around her and her own actions very carelessly, without giving the slightest thought to the consequences. After all, there’s Dad and the “nice uncle lawyer,” who will always rush to help and solve every problem. But life is arranged in such a way that sooner or later you will have to pay for your carelessness and your actions.
All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.
