The expansion of simplified criminal procedures has been important over the last thirty years. While they certainly produce judgments at a reduced cost, recent findings hint at their higher risk of wrongful convictions. This article sheds light on the emergence of penal orders in Germany, first used by the Prussian police as mandate orders. Today, numerous countries apply penal orders to minor offences and impose penalties that have become harsher over time. The procedural shortcuts of penal orders, which made them successful in the first place, entail considerable risks of wrongful convictions. Courts are able to render justice more swiftly, but at what cost? In Germany, convictions are recorded in the Central Criminal Register and exclude convicted persons from work in many fields. This article contends that the procedural shortcuts of penal orders, which allow a preliminary prosecutorial investigation to be rendered as a judicial decision, require additional safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions.

Minor infractions represent the majority of criminal cases. Simplified or summary procedures have addressed their increasing number in order to unburden the courts. Because of reduced requirements for the case to be adjudicated, this procedural economy comes usually to the cost of the defendant. Penal orders represent the most successful form of fast track procedure in which the public prosecutor plays a predominant role. After a police report and sometimes a short investigation, penal orders are issued and notified to the defendant. If they are not objected, their judgment equals the decision of a court. In other words, penal orders rely on the tacit agreement of the defendant. This contribution presents the risks of penal orders to produce wrongful convictions and proposes a set of recommendations that could improve the current situation. A combination of legal sources and empirical studies shed light on the delicate balance between the efficiency of justice and the defendant’s rights.

Summary proceedings and especially penal orders have become increasingly relevant in criminal justice systems across Europe. The prosecution holds significant power and convictions cannot guarantee that defendants understand their judgment. This contribution compares laws and empirical data on penal orders in France, Germany and Switzerland, with a focus on the role of the prosecution and the rights of the defence. I argue that while penal orders offer an efficient way of processing minor crimes, they also pose a high risk of erroneous sanctions and wrongful convictions. The contribution concludes that in order to protect the rights of the defence, the balance of power between the prosecution and the defendant needs to be improved by granting a hearing before a judgment is rendered, and by translating the penal order and delivering it in judicial appointments. The findings provide valuable insights into the need for continued reform in the area of summary proceedings.

Abstract:This study investigates the expressive side of the sentencing hearing in three trials dealing respectively with a charge of battery, of indecent assault and of manslaughter. The communication phases of the sentence have been associated with underlying functions of the judge's speech and with moments of moralization. The specificity of the case appears in the distancing from the defendant and in the moralizing style of the judges. We discuss the implication of this procedure for the administration of justice and for the defendant.