Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Everyday Practice and Low-Level Crime

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The German Prosecution Service

  • 654 Accesses

Abstract

The average German prosecutor who practices before the Amtsgericht [lower level criminal court] must process 1000 cases per year. That averages out to 4–5 cases per day. Because of the burden of this case load, a prosecutor’s first question when he approaches a case is: “Shall I dismiss the case?”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Justice Ministry Official [9CK], 4 May 2006.

  2. 2.

    Prosecutor Interview [10BJ], 26 June 2006.

  3. 3.

    Prosecutor Interview [10ED], 28 June 2006.

  4. 4.

    Prosecutor Interview [13WT], 18 November 2005.

  5. 5.

    I use the term “every day” crime to apply to crimes classified in the German system as a low-level offense or Vergehen.

  6. 6.

    Prosecutor Interview [11OT], 15 July 2005 and Prosecutor Interview [13PR], 6 December 2005.

  7. 7.

    Federal Court of Justice NJW 2005, 1440f.

  8. 8.

    Justice Ministry Interview [9CK], 4 May 2006.

  9. 9.

    See § 153 Nr.1 StPO. Under the “day fine” system which Germany adopted from Swedish practice, fines are calculated progressively, i.e. the more income one earns, the higher the fine. A fine for a certain crime is first assessed in terms of a specific number of days. Then the prosecutor estimates the defendant’s income from the information the defendant has provided to the police and calculates the appropriate value of the fine per day. Thus while two defendants who are charged with a crime may be assessed a similar punishment of a 5 day fine, the amount of the fine will differ according to their estimated income levels.

  10. 10.

    According to Germany’s Code of Criminal Procedure, if a prosecutor believes that there is sufficient evidence to warrant holding a trial in a case, the prosecutor will send the investigation file to the court with a petition to open a main proceeding. The court will then review the file and determine whether the evidentiary standard for opening a main proceeding has been met. Although a main proceeding has a similar outcome to a trial in the United States (i.e. the court will enter a determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence), there are significant procedural differences. In recognition of those differences, I will continue to refer to that stage of the proceedings as a main proceeding rather than as a trial.

  11. 11.

    Pursuant to §374 StPO, an aggrieved party may initiate prosecutions in cases involving trespass, defamation, violation of the privacy of correspondence, bodily injury, threat, taking or offering a bribe in a business transaction, criminal damage to property, certain criminal offenses related to unfair competition, and a range of other offenses related to trademark, patent, and copyright infringement.

  12. 12.

    Statistics of the Public Prosecution Offices (2006). German Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden (Table 4.1).

  13. 13.

    Id.

  14. 14.

    §153 Nr. 1 StPO.

  15. 15.

    Appellate Judge Interview [22FE], 22 July 2004.

  16. 16.

    Prosecutor Interview [13WT], 18 November 2005.

  17. 17.

    Prosecutor Interview [4GG], 21 January 2006.

  18. 18.

    Ministry Interview [9RR], 30 June 2006.

  19. 19.

    Prosecutor Interview [13WT], 18 November 2005.

  20. 20.

    Prosecutor Interview [12BX], 25 April 2006.

  21. 21.

    Prosecutor Interview [9BU], 4 May 2005.

  22. 22.

    The Amtsgericht level includes two “first instance” venues for cases involving adults. A single “Strafrichter” or criminal judge sitting alone can hear cases involving possible a possible criminal sanction of up to 2 years imprisonment. The “Schöffengericht”, which includes one professional judge and two lay judges, is competent to hear cases involving a potential sentence of up to 4 years imprisonment. Cases which involve potential sentences of 4 years or more imprisonment begin at the Landgericht level. See §§ 24, 25, 74 GVG.

  23. 23.

    Prosecutor Interview [13WT], 18 November 2005.

  24. 24.

    Steinau and all other place names that appear in italics are pseudonyms.

  25. 25.

    Prosecutor Interview [12AE], 28 November 2005.

  26. 26.

    Prosecutor Interview [7WK], 5 April 2006.

  27. 27.

    Prosecutor Interview [1CK], 13 March 2006.

  28. 28.

    Prosecutor Interview [1CK], 13 March 2006.

  29. 29.

    § 160 Nr. 1 StPO.

  30. 30.

    Prosecutor Interview [3TW], 8 November 2005.

  31. 31.

    Prosecutor Interview [4EW], 2 February 2006.

  32. 32.

    Prosecutor Interview [7VG], 3 April 2006.

  33. 33.

    Attorney Interview [9QO], 16 July 2006.

  34. 34.

    Prosecutor Interview [16PP], 30 April 2008.

  35. 35.

    Prosecutor Interview [16PP], 30 April 2008.

  36. 36.

    Prosecutor Interview [12BX], 25 April 2006.

  37. 37.

    Prosecutor Interview [12BX], 25 April 2006.

  38. 38.

    Prosecutor Interview [16PP], 30 April 2008.

  39. 39.

    Prosecutor Interview [6SB], 23 February 2006.

  40. 40.

    Prosecutor Interview [4EW], 2 February 2006.

  41. 41.

    Ministry Interview [9CK], 4 May 2006.

  42. 42.

    Prosecutor Interview [4GG], 30 January 2006.

  43. 43.

    Prosecutor Interview [13EU], 6 December 2005; Prosecutor Interview [5BC], 16 January 2006; and Prosecutor Interview [12CO], 24 April 2006.

  44. 44.

    Prosecutor Interview [4EW], 2 February 2006.

  45. 45.

    Prosecutor Interview [4GG], 30 December 2006.

  46. 46.

    Prosecutor Interview [7AG], 7 April 2006.

  47. 47.

    Prosecutor Interview [5BC], 16 January 2006.

  48. 48.

    As one department manager explained:

    Our current Justice Minister was a judge for ten years. He is a good person and he is better than his predecessor. He has eliminated many of the bureaucratic practices. He visits each office once per year, not to give orders, but to drink beer and talk. You can say anything to him … While it is clear that everyone must do their job, he has improved working conditions. For example- he made sure that everyone had an internet connection and that they have new computers. Prosecutor Interview [7GC], 6 April 2006.

  49. 49.

    Prosecutor Interview [7VG], 3 April 2006.

  50. 50.

    Paralegal Interview [10ED], 28 June 2006.

  51. 51.

    Paralegal Interview [10ED], 28 June 2006.

  52. 52.

    Offices that do not regularly use expedited decision procedures may also use computerized charging forms that can be accessed by paralegals to file charges in simple cases such as the failure to pay a bus fare. Prosecutor Interview [4 GG], 30 January 2006.

  53. 53.

    Id.

  54. 54.

    The procedures are delineated in §§417–420 StPO.

  55. 55.

    §420 StPO.

  56. 56.

    Prosecutor Interview [10SK], 21 June 2006.

  57. 57.

    Paralegal Interview [10ED], 28 June 2006.

  58. 58.

    Prosecutor Interview [4GG], 30 January 2006.

  59. 59.

    Prosecutor Interview [16PP], 30 April 2008.

References

Books, Articles and Online Publications

  • Albrecht, H.-J. (2000). Criminal prosecution developments, trends and open questions in the Federal Republic of Germany. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 8, 245–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collin, P. (2001). Die Geburt der Staatsanwaltschaft, in PreBen, Forum Historiaese Iuris (12 März). Available at http://fhi.rg.mpg.de/articles/0103collin.htm. Accessed 3 Aug 2013.

  • Dubber, M. D. (2005). The promise of German criminal law: A science of crime and punishment. German Law Journal, 6, 1049–1071.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsner, B., & Peters, J. (2006). The prosecution service function within the German criminal justice system. In J.-M. Jehle & M. Wade (Eds.), Coping With overloaded criminal justice systems: The rise of prosecutorial power across Europe (pp. 207–236). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erb, V. (1999). Legalitäts und Opportunitätsgrundsatz als normative Prinzipien. In C. Geisler (Ed.), Das Ermittlungsverhalfen der Polizei und die Einstellungspraxis der Staatsanwaltschaften ed. Reihe Kriminologie und Praxis Wiesbaden: Schriftenreihe für Wolfgang Blomeyer. Berlin: Dunker and Homblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser, A. (1996). The acceleration of criminal proceedings and the rights of the accused: Comparative observations as to the reform of criminal procedure in Europe. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 3, 341–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felstiner, W. L. F. (1979). Plea contracts in West Germany. Law & Society Review, 13, 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, C. (1999). Das Ermittlungsverfahren der Polizei und die Einstellung-Praxis der Staatsanwaltschaften: Bestandsaufnahme, Erfahrungen und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Kiminologische Zentralstelle eV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinz, W. (2006). Penal sanctions and sanctioning practice in the Federal Republic of Germany, The Konstanz repository on crime and sanctioning, 1882–2004. Konstanz: Konstanzer Inventar Sanktionsforschung (KIS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, J. (1976). The German prosecutor. In K. Culp Davis (Ed.), Discretionary justice in Europe and America (pp. 16–74). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohmann, B., & Neubeck, G. (1996). Zur Tätigkeit des Staatsanwalts. Dresden: Sächsischen Staatsministerium der Justiz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehle, J.-M. (2005). Criminal justice in Germany: Facts and figures (4th ed.). Berlin: Federal Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jescheck, H.-H. (1970). Principles of German criminal procedure in comparison with American law. Virginia Law Review, 56, 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein, J. H. (1979). Land without plea bargaining: How the Germans do it. Michigan Law Review, 78, 204–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nestler, C. (2004). Sentencing in Germany. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 7, 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sessar, K. (1979). Prosecutorial discretion in Germany. In W. McDonald (Ed.), The prosecutor (pp. 255–276). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treiber, H. (1980). Die Macht der Routine oder Was Geschiet nach dem Inkrafttreten eines Reform-Gesetzes Zur Implementierungspraxis der §§ 153, 153a StPO beim Bagatelldiebstahl. In K. Lüderseen & F. Sacks (Eds.), Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Sozial Wissenschaften Für das Strafrecht (pp. 444–478). Frankfurt/Main: Zweiter Teilbd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M., Smit, P., & Aubusson de Cavarlay, B. (2008). The prosecution role where courts decide cases. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 14, 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappalá, S. (2006). The German federal prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute a former Uzbeck Minister: Missed opportunity or prosecutorial wisdom? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3, 602–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

    Shawn Marie Boyne

Authors
  1. Shawn Marie Boyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Legislation

4.1.1 Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)

Sections 153, 153(a), 153(a)(1), 153(1), 170, 170(2), 407–412, 417

4.1.2 Code of Criminal Law (StGB)

Sections 102, 107, 120 108(e), 129(a)(3), 176(1), 177, 177(2), 180(b), 216, 222, 224, 244, 259, 263

Interviews

Prosecutor Interview [9CK], 4 May 2006

Prosecutor Interview [10BJ], 26 June 2006

Prosecutor Interview [10Ed], 28 June 2006

Prosecutor Interview [13WT], 18 November 2005

Prosecutor Interview [11OT], 15 July 2005

Prosecutor Interview [13PR], 6 December 2005

Prosecutor Interview [4GG], 21 January 2006

Prosecutor Interview [9RR], 30 June 2006

Prosecutor Interview [12BX], 25 April 2006

Prosecutor Interview [9BU], 4 May 2005

Prosecutor Interview [12AE], 28 November 2005

Prosecutor Interview [7WK], 5 April 2006

Prosecutor Interview [1CK], 13 March 2006

Prosecutor Interview [3TW], 8 November 2005

Prosecutor Interview [4EW], 2 February 2006

Prosecutor Interview [7VG], 3 April 2006

Prosecutor Interview [16PP], 30 April 2008

Prosecutor Interview [12BX], 25 April 2006

Prosecutor Interview [6SB], 23 February 2006

Prosecutor Interview [13EU], 6 December 2005

Prosecutor Interview [5BC], 16 January 2006

Prosecutor Interview [12CO], 24 April 2006

Prosecutor Interview [7AG], 7 April 2006

Prosecutor Interview [7GC], 6 April 2006

Paralegal Interview [10ED], 28 June 2006

Attorney Interview [9QO], 16 July, 2006

Appellate Judge Interview [22FE], 22 July 2004

Justice Ministry Official [9CK], 4 May 2006

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boyne, S.M. (2014). Everyday Practice and Low-Level Crime. In: The German Prosecution Service. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40928-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation