Originally Appearing in AAPL Newsletter, April 2017, Vol. 42, No. 2

Reggio Calabria sits on the edge of Italy’s “boot,” the Strait of Messina separating it from Sicily. The region has a 3,500-year history, first inhabited by Phoenicians, Trojans, Mycenaeans, and other peoples. It was an extremely important region when under Greek rule. Under the Romans, it was called “Rhegium Julium,” a noble city. At different times, it was ruled by the Byzantines, Arabs, Spanish, Turkish Ottomans, and Napoleon and was overrun by Barbary pirates, who enslaved its inhabitants in Tripoli. Earthquake-prone, the region was destroyed several times throughout its history and was victim of a deadly British air raid during World War II. It has a Mediterranean climate and is famous for its oranges, gardens promenades and . . . the

“Ndrangheta”, the local Mafia. And therein lies our story.

The “Ndrangheta” (pronounced n-DRAHN-ghe-ta) specializes in a multitude of crimes, from selling “protection,” to shops and other businesses, to drug-dealing and infiltrating every aspect of government. According to an article in The New York Times

(Feb. 10, 2017), 11-year-old children are lookouts during murders, witness drug deals, attend mob “brainstorming” sessions and are trained in using Kalashnikov assault rifles.

What could be done? Magistrate Roberto Di Bella had an idea some have considered brilliant, and others Nazi-like. Why not remove these vulnerable children from their culture and allow them to grow up to be decent, law-abiding citizens? The Magistrate said, “Sons follow their fathers, but the state can’t allow that children are educated to become criminals.” Minors are removed after committing such crimes as gang violence or fire-setting. Some are even novice Mafia members.

Since 2012, he has removed over 40 children from their families, with only about 25% transported with their mothers. The rest are placed in foster care. According to Di Bella, none of those children has committed a crime. Now, the Italian Justice Ministry has applied this proposal to all of Italy! Authorities must prove that the children are at risk for psychological and physical harm by their criminal families.

The radical proposal has been praised and damned. Even the Magistrate has been ambivalent at times, but reported mob fathers have thanked him. One father expressed his gratitude for giving his children “[a chance] to live in a taintless environment and to live in legality.” He continued, “I am proud to grant my children a different future.”

The “Ndrangheta” is one of the world’s most successful criminal enterprises. It spans most of Italy and its claws extend to South America and Australia. In Italy, young adolescents receive many gifts for their participation and are encouraged to spend more time with the mob than on their education. Thus, Italian authorities have argued, the children need to be forcibly removed from this environment. Otherwise, they will end up like their lost comrades, imprisoned for convictions ranging from minor offenses to murder.

This policy has been both attacked and defended by Italian mental health professionals and others. Psychologists and social workers are tapped to help these children recover from the trauma of being removed from their families and to allow them a “normal” childhood. When they are 18, these young adults are free to choose where they want to live – even if it is back in Reggio Calabria.

Mr. Di Bella has asked for government funding to hire more specialists to help with the project, now very popular with the Department of Juvenile Justice at Italy’s Ministry of Jus-tice. It is assumed – without scientific, valid research – that the program is a success. There are only anecdotal reports that some of the children do very well, that is, they apparently do not turn to a life of crime, like their fathers.

Critics argue the answer is not to remove the children but to improve mental health services and socioeconomic conditions in this very poor region. For example, out of 83 towns, only two have a social worker.

Most of us in this country, I sur-mise, would find this undertaking appalling. It brings to mind the infamous decision by Supreme Court Jus-tice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200 (1927), as cited in Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, by Adam Cohen.

Buck was the victim of the test of the legality of Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924. Her mother and daughter were also diagnosed as “imbeciles.” Bell was the superintendent of the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded, in Lynchburg. Opened in 1910, it was the largest asylum in the United States.

The case moved up the judicial ladder, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 2, 1927, the Court upheld the Virginia law, 8 to 1. Justice Holmes wrote: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He concluded with, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Carrie Buck was forcibly sterilized four and a half months later.

The Nazis became fascinated with the American pseudoscience of eugenics, and the rest is history.

Is this comparison to the Italian plan too outrageous? It is not. When the State becomes involved in the private lives of families, the question is who determines how much and how long? In the U.S., we empower child protective services to remove children from their home if they are abused or neglected, but then there is court over-sight of that removal, and, in most states, attempts at reunification. Children are not automatically removed because of their parents’ political beliefs or criminal behavior, as long as they are safe and well-cared for. Sons and daughters of prisoners often visit their fathers and this is not ipso facto considered a bad influence upon them.

In Italy, alleged mob fathers are not necessarily convicted before their children are removed. The decision is made by judges. There seems to be a presumption that removal will assure their psychological safety, when in fact, it may cause irreparable damage. Would such a draconian plan ever be instituted in this country? Let’s hope not.