The “integration” discourse, which the defense strategy draws on in this case, makes structural conditions appear as though they could be easily overcome by individuals’ personal choices. This liberal “common sense” is reflected in the judge’s words and actions as well, making it seem as though the fact of the woman’s criminalization was a matter of attitude and character. In part because of this discourse, migrantized people in Germany are under constant pressure to prove that they are “worthy” – by showing, for instance, that they want to work and learn the language, otherwise the state will be harsh with them. In this case, the judge adds to this their specific expectations for migrantized mothers, who are all the more harshly scrutinized in cases we have seen, openly reprimanded for being “bad mothers”, even when their criminalization is embedded in structural conditions.

Even though the woman struggles to make ends meet, the judge sentences her to a high fine, which is only going to make things more difficult.

The defendant is a young mother whose sole income source is the job center. She has a lawyer who appears to have prepared a defense strategy for her: The lawyer talks about the difficult circumstances of her client, including war in her home country and difficulties trying to – as she puts it – “integrate” in Germany. She mentions that her client has been doing an integration course and that she already paid a so-called “Fangprämie” fine at the store where she was caught stealing. Then the woman speaks for herself.

The judge responds with an implied judgment regarding the woman’s abilities as a mother.

The judge then goes on to read the defendant’s record, which lists three prior convictions for theft. The lawyer notes that all of these convictions were by penal order (“Strafbefehl”), suggesting that her client might have had difficulties understanding their content and their significance as criminal convictions.

In her final statement, the woman reasserts that she is trying to learn German and wants to find work. The judge notes that the woman’s promise is now in writing and that, therefore, she will be sent to prison for the next offense. Her reasoning lays out that while the woman’s prior convictions spoke against her, the fact that she only stole groceries and not “luxury items” as well as her willingness to “integrate” and to work spoke for her.