He's a real winner...

[nativetexan]

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


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.”
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."
Fagan did not respond to repeated requests for comment from FOXNews.com.
His remarks drew the ire of local activists as well as colleagues.
“I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary,” Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones told FOXNews.com on Wednesday.

“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.
“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?”
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.

[wtnhunt]

He should be disbarred for making such remarks.

Wonder how he would feel if he had a 6 year old daguhter who was a victim? Some people really just don't get it.

[stevebeilgard]

i sure hope this jerk doesn't have any kids..... what a messed up mind. he's out to protect the worst among us, those who would sexually abuse a child. where was he when those nice priests were being sexually attacked by those provocative little alter boys.... pretty sick. i hope he gets his comeuppance....

and tex, did you misprint the title?? did you mean to say weiner?? lol

[slugshooter]

Jeez. I hope what he was saying is hyperbole, because if he really believes that, he doesn't need a lawyer. That is why, if I do end up going to law school, there is no way I could be a defense attorney. I have a conscience. I understand that everyone is entitled to a defense, but to seemingly blame a child for what happened to them is reprehensible. The only way I can remotely see his point is if he is referring to those children who make those stories up, which does happen from time to time, and end up ruining someones life. But with a child, it's pretty obvious if something did happen and whether or not they are making it up.

[wtnhunt]

iand tex, did you misprint the title?? did you mean to say weiner?? lol

Think that was pure sarcasm Steve.

Jeez. I hope what he was saying is hyperbole, because if he really believes that, he doesn't need a lawyer. That is why, if I do end up going to law school, there is no way I could be a defense attorney. I have a conscience. I understand that everyone is entitled to a defense, but to seemingly blame a child for what happened to them is reprehensible. The only way I can remotely see his point is if he is referring to those children who make those stories up, which does happen from time to time, and end up ruining someones life. But with a child, it's pretty obvious if something did happen and whether or not they are making it up.

Here is more on the story along with a video clip http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html, you can make out of it what you want for yourself. I maintain my opinion that he needs disbarred.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

That's the lowest of the low. But what else should we expect from a liberal Democrat?

[stevebeilgard]

Think that was pure sarcasm Steve.

yep. i knew that.



Here is more on the story along with a video clip http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html, you can make out of it what you want for yourself. I maintain my opinion that he needs disbarred.

you have to remember here that he'll never get disbarred. it's his fellow attorneys who would do the disbarment, and alll too many of his fellow attorneys are like minded. they actually AGREE with him..... why do you think this country is in the mess it's in. and that goes right up to the supreme court, some of whom actually said the second amendment was against the constitution. what????

[EKYhunter]

Guys,
This is what defense attorneys do in sexual abuse cases, especially when there is strong physical evidence of guilt on the part of their client. They are actually trying to get the victim to recant their statements. I'm certainly not taking up for this man, however he just voiced what most of them already do and know. Unfortunately, many district attorneys, prosecutors, whatever your state or county calls them, will not prosecute sexual abuse cases if they think the victim will not make a good witness, despite what the physical evidence might be and many times there is no physical evidence. I think the public would/should be just as shocked/upset if they knew about these cases and how often these terrible acts go unpunished. I see it quiet often.

[wtnhunt]

you have to remember here that he'll never get disbarred. it's his fellow attorneys who would do the disbarment, and alll too many of his fellow attorneys are like minded. they actually AGREE with him.....

Have heard the expression never say never.

While what you say about many agreeing with the man Steve may be true, this jerk is on the record with saying what he did in a way that should draw enough attention to him for someone to be able to force him out of his position, maybe just maybe someone will step up. Problem is as you point out that there are too many liberal minded lawmakers out there who care more about the criminals than the rights of the victims, which is absolutely disgusting.