What an outstanding guy

[AUTiger1 0]

Massachusetts Lawmaker's Pledge to 'Rip Apart' Child Rape Victims at Trial Draws Fury

Thursday, June 26, 2008

A Massachusetts politician and defense attorney has touched off a firestorm with his shocking public vow to torment and "rip apart" child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed stiff mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.

Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor.

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "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.” --What an outstanding guy to have as a representative

Fagan said as a defense attorney it would be his duty to do that in order to keep his clients free from a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions."--So you just doing your job just happens to make you want to rip a victim, a child, apart so they are screwed up for the rest of their life? I hope you sleep well sir!

Fagan did not respond to repeated requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

His remarks drew the ire of local activists as well as colleagues.--Not surprised are you?

“I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary,” Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones told FOXNews.com on Wednesday.--You think?????

“I appreciate that he’s a defense attorney, and felt he had a point to make, but I think it was unnecessary,” said Jones, who supported an original version of the bill. “It was excessive.”

The father of the Florida girl for whom Jessica's Law is named also blasted Fagan after hearing the comments.

Mark Lunsford, whose 9-year-old daughter was abducted and buried alive in a trash bag by a sex offender in 2005, told the Boston Herald on Tuesday that Fagan should take the rights of victimized children seriously.---Damn right he should!

“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Lunsford told the paper. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”--Anyone want to answer the mans question?

The bill that he opposed eventually passed the House and set mandatory minimum sentences of between 10 and 15 years for a set of different offenses against children ranging from assault to sexual crimes. A version is still pending in the state Senate.

From a legal perspective, law professor Phyllis Goldfarb said Fagan was probably expressing a basic courtroom truth – that it is a defense attorney’s job to test the prosecution’s case, especially when mandatory penalties are on the line.

“It is fundamentally true … if the proof is coming almost exclusively through a child witness you may have to find a way to test it. That’s the attorney-client obligation there,” Goldfarb told FOXNews.com.

Goldfarb, who used to direct the Criminal Justice Clinic at Boston College Law School, said Fagan used some over-the-top language, but that he probably didn't relish the idea of cross-examining a child. She said it's just his job.

“You do have to challenge a witness,” she said. “Some people find ways of doing that that are loyal to their role as defense attorneys -- testing the proof (in ways) that aren’t abusive to a witness, but it's very hard.

“And I think being put in that hard position is what he seems to be railing against here, using language that’s probably a little bit hyperbolic.”

Lunsford will be in Massachusetts on Wednesday to push the state Senate to include mandatory prison time in the state's final version of Jessica's Law, according to the Herald.--I for one, hope he is sucessful!

Reader Information: State Rep. James Fagan is a Democrat representing the Third Bristol District, which includes the city of Taunton. Fagan, a 1973 graduate of Suffolk Law School, has been representing the district since 1993, and serves as chair of the House ethics committee. He can be reached by e-mailing or calling:

State House: 617-722-2040

District office: 508-824-7000

E-mail: Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us--You can bet that mailbox will be flooded.

Link

Another article from the Boston Herald.

Jessica’s Law dad blasts Mass. rep

By Dave Wedge

The father of a slain Florida girl pushing for mandatory prison time for child rapists in the Bay State is blasting a Taunton lawmaker who said he’d torment young victims on the witness stand to defend his perv clients.--Does anyone seriously have a problem with this? Should we just let them walk the streets?

“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Mark Lunsford fumed, slamming recent remarks by Rep. James Fagan. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”Once again, answer?

Lunsford, whose daughter Jessica was raped and murdered in Florida by a repeat sex offender, will be in Massachusetts tomorrow to push lawmakers to pass Jessica’s Law, which would require a 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12. The House passed a watered-down version of the bill last week but Lunsford and other victims’ rights activists will be pushing the Senate to include mandatory prison time in the final law.--Yes ladies and gentlemen that did repeat, as in more than once!!

“If this bill is not going to put these people away, don’t disrespect me by putting my daughter’s name on it,” Lunsford told the Herald last night. “You have to put these guys in prison and admit these people are uncurable.”--I would be mad to Mr. Lunsford.

Fagan, a defense attorney, infuriated victims’ rights advocates during a recent House debate when he said he would “rip apart” 6-year-old victims on the witness stand and “make sure the rest of their life is ruined.”

In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so 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.”---

Fagan did not return calls seeking comment.--One doesn't have to wonder why.

Rep. Karyn Polito, a Republican from Shrewsbury who supports Jessica’s Law, said of Fagan’s comments: “The words speak for themselves. I think there’s a large part of the (House) membership that doesn’t agree with that.”Well, I would hope not!

Fagan also called Jessica’s Law “knee-jerk” legislation and said “every time the Legislature has named a law after somebody, it has been a failure.”Really great reason to not pass a law. "Hey, last time we passed a law named after John or Sally Q Public it wasn't good" Really, is that the kind of people that you want as an elected representative?

That comment angered Ron Bersani, grandfather of Melanie Powell, whose death at the hands of a drunken driver inspired Melanie’s Law, which hiked OUI penalties.

“Absolutely ridiculous,” Bersani said. “I would beg to differ with Rep. Fagan.”--I would say that you are not alone sir.

Bersani also took issue with Fagan’s characterization of such laws as “knee-jerk.”

“I find that description despicable,” Bersani said. “It’s a lot easier to call it knee-jerk when it’s not your daughter or granddaughter.”

dwedge@bostonherald.com

Link

[Shire5k 19]

This guy sounds like a real winner.

[autigeremt 6,660]

He sure does...... every day, you find another example of idiot in this world.

[autiger4life 3]

Just for the record,

the argument against these mandatory sentences is that so many of the prosecutions have shaky cases that they are able to settle a lot of the times. This makes the person do hard time, as well as put him on the sexual predator list so that we can make sure he never does it again.

If there are these mandatory sentences then the defense has no reason to settle because a settlement gets you the same thing as fighting it and being found guilty. This means that they will all fight it tooth and nail, which ends up letting some get off the hook because of things like juries, not proved beyond reasonable doubt, questionable evidence, questionable witness, stuff like that.

It could potentially cause more sex offenders to get off when they would have settled had their not been the mandatory sentences.