Italy's most powerful and enduring organised crime groups known as mafias are built on blood ties. But a controversial program is removing children from mafia-affiliated families in the hope of breaking the cycle and giving them a chance to choose a different life.
Did you miss my big, big disclaimer? “excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent”.
In the case under discussion, the parents are convicted major criminals, there’s a big difference from targeting a certain race. I do agree it’s a potential slippery slope.
You can teach the kids their options, but the home environment obviously exerts a greater influence, especially if they are brought up to glorify it.
I have a serious, non-rhetorical question that I’m honestly interested in an answer to. Given that the parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence? This question is specific to this situation, not about the potential for abuse of the law in other situations. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I appreciate hypothetical discussions.
Only in a perfect scenario would there be no abuse, so it’s nonsensical to ignore it. The reality is how bad will the abuse have to be before this program is deemed a failure.
There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody. If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.
Source? It’s an official govt program being run by a judge. Not even those opposing the program are claiming it’s against the law, they’re just saying it’s a bad idea.
Worse than grooming the kids to be crime lords? It’s a closely scrutinised program, and nobody’s calling shenanigans on the implementation, not even the kids being interviewed. It might not work out, that’s true, but I am not seeing a reason that it would be a definite failure.
I’ll know this may sound strange but just because it’s a government program does not mean due process is followed. Loss of custody was not part of sentencing, these are additional conditions applied after sentencing.
The interviews published were hand selected, the articles are very biased. I’ll sumerize a different way, only 3 of the 100 kids taken from their parents did not speak poorly about their experience.
One of the foster centers is the Catholic church. Nothing mixes better than Catholic priests and children.
Due process means the law was fairly applied and their rights were respected. I agree and understand that a govt program does not mean this is the case. In the absence of any countervailing evidence however, that would be the default assumption.
I agree with you there. The kids are not under a gag order though. Is there any other article or source that indicates a different situation from the one described here?
Additional sentencing was added, a parent or parents went to jail and their kids were taken from them.
Trusting the government to do the right thing is a poor idea. Politicians will only do the “right” thing if it helps them out.
That usually starts trickling out much later, look at how long it took for the truth to come out about troubled youth camps.
How is that additional sentencing? In essence, they proved themselves to be unfit parents (because, you know, the whole grooming for crime thing), and had their kids removed due to that. It’s like if you lost your job because you were convicted of a crime. That’s not additional sentencing, that’s just a consequence of your actions
Without any information, this is just idle conspiracy theorising. It’s not even about politicians, since from the sound of it this came from regular govt officials, not elected politicians.
The difference there is the state is doing both things for the same crime, and employment is a conditional agreement.
Blindly trusting that the government would do the right thing requires a severe lack of understanding of history.
Elected officials are the ones who hold regular govt officials accountable.