Humble Meetings

March 5, 2012

Diagnoses of mental disorders will ever be disheartening, but that of autism still leaves a lingering question mark in the minds of doctors and parents. Emerson College’s Communication week put on a documentary last Wednesday, the 4th entitled, “Refrigerator Mothers,” a film retelling the stories of mothers with autistic children from the 50’s and 60’s.

During this time period, many leading scientists concluded the cause of autism being lack of maternal bond. Mothers were blamed for children’s disorder, placing a great deal of responsibility and grief on their shoulders. Holocaust survivor and scientist, Bruno Bettelheim, in 1964, claimed the experience of autism similar to that of being in a concentration camp.

"The difference between the plight of prisoners in a concentration camp and the conditions which lead to autism and schizophrenia in children is, of course, that the child has never had a previous chance to develop much of a personality."

Dr. Daniel Kempler, Chair of the Communication Sciences and Disorders at Emerson, said at the event, “what I find so interesting about this movie is that it makes me question what I know to be true. It’s humbling in that way.”

The theory of maternal bond having a causal relationship with autism has long been replaced by genetic reasoning for the disease. The mothers of this documentary are relieved now in knowing they are not to blame for the cause of autism. It stands to reason that we have many more truths to question.

3 strikes, you're in?

February 29, 2012

Tuesday, February 28th Massachusetts City Council held a public meeting to debate amendments to the Habitual Offender Bill, a plan to lengthen punishments for repeat, violent criminals. Opposers, though, question its cost and supposed benefits.

Councilor Charles Yancey sponsored a resolution for the bill saying, “I am concerned that we’re going to close the doors on too many people...[who] may have had an opportunity to receive treatment.”

The bill, if enacted, would have major public effect. Catching and retaining violent, repetitive criminals shows a potential relief for Massachusetts citizens. But the definition of “violent” is at the heart of the controversy.

Opposers of the bill  include five Boston City Councilors and multiple local and state organizations. These parties question the wording of the bill, saying it may sentence nonviolent offenders to a life in prison, such as drug criminals who could be removed from prison with rehabilitation.

The financing for life sentences may also cost taxpayers. Nancy Murray, American Civil Liberty Union Education Director, spoke at the meeting saying, “the bill would push back any chance of parole, and in many cases, would strip it away entirely.” And with a “price tag of $50,000 per person per year,” she says, “we can’t afford it.”

The reaction by the supporters only further confused those listening. Bruce Tarr, alongside The Senate Ways and Means Committee insists that “‘the Yancey Resolution’ compares the habitual offender bill to the so called three-strikes law” which sentences criminals to life in prison after three violent felonies.

Tarr says these are not synonymous, that the bill “requires repeat offenders to serve a maximum punishment for a 3rd offense.” The argument suggests that the finance will be a non-issue for taxpayers.

The confusing tiff between the supporters and opposers continues to hold off the official decision of the bill. The permanent fate of the bill is posed to be in place by the end of March, this year.