"I'm going to rip them apart"
mrbigbluelight
Posts: 9,846
No, not me. James Fagan. Defense Attorney AND Massachusetts State Representative (Democrat), James Fagan.
"Let me tell you why it's so wrong," said Fagan (D-Taunton). "It's so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I'm going to rip them apart. I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they're 8 years old they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep. When they're 19 years old they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody. And that's not because I'm a nice guy. That's because when you're in court, and you're defending somebody's liberty, and you're facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer."
The Honorable Mr. Fagan said that about child victims of sexual predators on the floor of the Mass. State House of Representatives in debate about a bill to protect children from child rapists with mandatory sentencing.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aq-NJ1YQu8M&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aq-NJ1YQu8M&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
That's really just ...... extra special.
"Let me tell you why it's so wrong," said Fagan (D-Taunton). "It's so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I'm going to rip them apart. I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they're 8 years old they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep. When they're 19 years old they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody. And that's not because I'm a nice guy. That's because when you're in court, and you're defending somebody's liberty, and you're facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer."
The Honorable Mr. Fagan said that about child victims of sexual predators on the floor of the Mass. State House of Representatives in debate about a bill to protect children from child rapists with mandatory sentencing.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aq-NJ1YQu8M&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aq-NJ1YQu8M&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
That's really just ...... extra special.
Sal Palooza
Post edited by mrbigbluelight on
Comments
-
I'm not in any way condoning what he is saying, but that's the reality of the judicial system as far as defense attorney's go.
I think that was part of a discussion about whether to make the death sentence mandatory for child rapists, which the supreme court shut down saying that death was not justifiable for the offence..........comment comment comment comment. bitchy. -
that's the reality of the judicial system as far as defense attorney's go.
Yep.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
I STILL don't understand, why someone hasn't clipped these a**holes that are holding up Jessica's law in these states. Or at least harassed the crap out of them & their families.
If I lived in MA, I'd keep putting signs on that clowns lawn, "Pedophile Lives HERE!"I refuse to argue with idiots, because people can't tell the DIFFERENCE! -
I think that was part of a discussion about whether to make the death sentence mandatory for child rapists, which the supreme court shut down saying that death was not justifiable for the offence..........
He was arguing against mandatory 20-year sentences for child rape. HIs argument was that, if there was a mandatory sentence, he would defend his client more fiercely, which of course is a completely flawed argument. Sentencing comes AFTER the judgment; as it stands right now a verdict of guilt COULD result in a 20-year sentence already. All this law (or at least this portion of this law) is doing is preventing lenient judges (we have a lot of those in Massachusetts - they just love letting criminals back in the streets) from giving minor sentences to people who have already been FOUND guilty.
As for this ****'s argument, there are not many courtrooms in the world where you can really badger an adult witness, let alone an 8 or 10-year old like he's talking about. While it is "his job" to defend his client to the best of his ability, it's up to the judge's discretion how badly you can tear down a witness. One would hope they'd draw the line pretty early for children on the stand accusing someone of raping them.If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
Seriously, I'm sure the guy hates sex offenders, but you have to look at where he's coming from. Jessica's law may have great application to a rescidivist child fondler, but what about the guy who streaked in college (sex offender count 1) and then was accused by his step daughter of molestation. He could go away for 25 years. Oddly enough, I know this guy . . . he was later set free after hard evidence he did nothing of the sort and the girl's own confession.
The definition of a sex offender is just too broad. The system needs to be reformed to castch only the real effed up asses. -
Again, the specific thing this guy is arguing against is mandatory sentencing for child RAPE. Not just any sex offense. I totally agree with you SolidSqual; anyone can get the sex offender tag slapped on them. But mandatory sentencing for actual rape (I'm assuming statutory rape is not included in that definition, because that's another law that needs reform; w hen a high school senior sleeps with his sophomore girlfriend and goes to jail something is wrong) of a child having a mandatory 20-year sentence? You can really find something wrong with that? IN your friend's example above NOTHING would have changed - his appeal still would have gone through and he would still be out of jail and exonerated.If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
