Two days after the riots in Paris, the first suspects appeared in court. The riots began on October 17th, a Saturday. The trials began in Paris on Monday. Over the weekend, four courtrooms instead of the usual two were reserved for the “comparutions immédiates”, i.e. the summary trials. On the third day, trials also started in Lyon and Marseille. Dozens of procedures were running in parallel. This is how it should be in Germany: the state's response follows immediately. Criminal law exists.
Five days after the riots, the French balance sheet was: around 2,700 people in police custody, more than 1,000 appearances before judges, 217 detentions. By November 3, the number had risen to almost 5,000 people in police custody. The figures show that the French justice system did not just register those arrested and send them home. She brought a significant number of them before a judge within a few days and held them in custody or pre-trial detention until then. Most of the punishments may have been fairly lenient, but the justice system's swift response may still have left an impression on the rioters.
In expedited criminal proceedings there is often only a few days between police custody and the verdict. The French government sees them as a means of showing toughness. The judges examine the evidence and living conditions of the defendants under great time pressure. Although they can request more time for their defense, they may then have to remain in custody until the new date. Many people then prefer to make a quick judgment.
Germany could do that too. For simple cases that do not require a complex investigation, the Code of Criminal Procedure uses the accelerated procedure. In this case, there is no need for a written accusation, there is no need for an interim procedure, the summons period can be shortened to 24 hours, and if the facts are simple and the evidence is clear, the verdict can be made directly in the hearing. Prison sentences of up to one year are permitted. The Berlin juvenile judge Kirsten Heisig once successfully used it on young intensive offenders.
The two types of procedure differ in legal terms. The main difference lies in practice: in France, these summary procedures are a regular and frequently used part of the criminal justice system. In Germany they are more of a marginal phenomenon.
France can activate the procedural chain at any time
They also showed in the summer of 2023 that the French have practice at this: At that time, after the great unrest, 1,278 verdicts were handed down within a good three weeks. 742 defendants received prison sentences. By the end of August, 2,107 people had been brought to trial and 1,989 had been convicted.
France does not have a special judiciary, but rather organizes itself differently: public prosecutors sort the cases into simple and complicated cases. Anyone who has been caught in the act, has confessed or can be convicted through video recordings will be put into summary proceedings. The political message is: quickly, consistently, systematically. This is missing in Germany.
This is actually the goal in Germany too, especially among young people. Because punishment is effective not only through its level, but also through its proximity to the crime. Anyone who loots a store on Saturday and is already sitting in the courtroom on Monday will experience a direct government reaction that will hopefully have an educational effect.
Of course, not every riot case is suitable for this. In the case of a serious breach of the peace, the accused must be proven to have made a specific contribution to the crime. Short videos often only show excerpts. Proceedings against young people also follow different rules. But who comes out of a looted store with stolen goods, is filmed throwing stones or is caught with a stolen weapon does not represent a major criminal mystery. In such cases, Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig's controversial plan to find faces using biometric internet searches could bring quick investigative success.
After the Frankfurt riots on October 31, authorities reported 54 arrests, 87 criminal charges, five stores looted and more than 100 injured police officers. If Germany set the French pace, the first judgments should have been made on November 2nd. Several fast-track proceedings would have to take place on November 3rd. A public assessment of presentations, convictions and arrest decisions could be expected after five days at the latest. That sounds unimaginable for German conditions, but it would be legally feasible and send a strong signal.
