Debate Over Jessica’s Law Reveals Lack of Morality
While it is true that it is wrong to stereotype people, there are those moments where individuals remind us how the stereotypes came to be in the first place. It is not only racial classes or religions that are stereotyped however, as I am sure we can all think of a lawyer joke or politician joke which will inevitable classify that group as heartless, corrupt, and only interested in their own self interests.
Democratic Representative James Fagan was in the Massachusetts State House yesterday railing against Jessica’s Law, which would mandate 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12. As a defense attorney he took offense to the idea that someone convicted or raping a young child should have a mandatory sentence imposed on them, arguing it would force him to attack the little girl in order to defend his client:
If video doesn’t embed click here
“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, 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.”
While it is true that it is a defense attorney’s obligation to defend his or her client to the best of his of her ability, that is true in all cases. Mr. Fagan would have you believe that he would be harsher in his cross examination of the victim if his client is facing 20 years then if he was only facing 5 years. His illogical, and downright offense argument is that by mandating a sentence of 20 years, the State legislature will be victimizing the child by forcing him and his peers to traumatize the little girl on the witness stand. In essence, he argues that the only way to prevent him from “ruining” her life, is by offering leniency to the child rapist in the hopes he does not attack another young girl.
After watching this video I was reminded of the old joke, “What do you call 100 lawyers (or politicians) at the bottom of the ocean?…. A good start”.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
What a f&*ing scumbag! And we need people like this in Congress? He needs to be IMPEACHED!!!!!!
James Fagan needs to have his sadistic tuchus recalled — NOW! He needs to be removed from office and I hope that it is a survivor or victim of child rape that beats the HELL out of him in the election!
WAKE UP MASWSACHUSETTS — SAVE YOURSELVES — VOTE REPUBLICAN NOW!
20 years? That’s all? Need to fire up Ol’ Sparky for Child Rapists.
One of the few times in my life I have been speechless. I have always considered lawyers to be loathsome creatures, but this piece of garbage takes the cake!
But then we’re talking Massachusetts here - home of the Hero of Chappaquidick (Kennedy), the Hero of Vietnam (Kerry), the Hero of San Francisco (Frank), et all.
Do you people have any sense of decency at ALL?
Rhetorical question … never mind.
This man… and others like him, are the biggest contributors to the demise of Western civilization.
That is one of the most heinous things I have ever seen. I hope that man rots in the same ring of hell as his child raping clients.
This guy has managed to convince me he’d enjoy the prospect of raping a child - if not physically, then certainly psychologically. His argument seriously falls apart when one considers that - according to his distorted version of his function as a lawyer - he’d need to ‘destroy a child for life’ whether the law was putting the rapist behind bars for 2 weeks or 20 years - and do so simply because he’d being ‘doing his job’.
An alternate explanation is that he’s on meth-amphetamines.
Charles! Congrats on the link from STACLU, which is how I ended up here! I’m guessing you cross posted this to GRAFFITI POLIITI over on Gather! I came here to get a transcript of the quote, and analyze it. You beat me to the punch, as usual! Great post, sir!
James Fagan…what a tool. Wonder how he’d feel if it was his daughter that was raped? Lawyers are scum.
I will never understand how any decent human being could ever vote for a Democrat.
Smart. Tough.
” 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.”
This is what happens to a raped child by virtue of the fact of the rape. What’s he’s very enthusiastically proposing is gang rape .. with him in the second position to the first gang member. He’s rooting for rape. Someone asked, “What if this was his daughter”? I think he’s convincingly demonstrated that he’d gladly violate his daughter in the same fashion as he would other children.
My father was a lawyer; my husband is a lawyer - both men the personification of decency. This guy happens to be scum w/a law degree. He needs to be disbarred.
Does anyone else see what I’m seeing?
Our country is completely upside down.
VICTIMS HAVE NO RIGHTS!
iF THEY DID THEY COULD HAVE GONE INTO THAT PERVERTS TRAILER AND SAVED LITTLE JESSICA.
Our country is determined to save pieces of shit so they can repeat these offenses.
OUR CHILDREN DESERVE TO BE PROTECTED!
THIS MAN SHOULD LOSE HIS SEAT AS A REPRESENTATIVE.
HE DOES NOT DESERVE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.
Leave him to his law practice and his pedophile buddies.
So let me get this right, what this tool is saying is that if hes defending a client who has MULTIPLE! previous convictions for child rape/abuse he thinks he has the “duty” to psychologically/emotionally destroy the child who is currently testifying against his client on this new charge because his client would if found guilty AGAIN! face 19 years in prison. If I’ve got this right then, WOW, literally, WOW.
Okay, I get it. It is rate the crime time.
Why do we have sexual offender registry and
not a attempted homocide registry, armed robbery
registry or domestic violence registry? I don’t
want any of those to happen to my family, but we can
all agree what loathesome people are that prey on children. What about those who prey on the elderly?
Why not mandatory sentences for them also? What
about me? It is important to me that I am not a
victim of crime. How about a mandatory sentence for
anyone who commits a crime against me?
THINK DAMN IT.
greg,
It’s funny how you people say something utterly stupid and then add something like “THINK GOD DAMN IT”.
There is no way to explain to somebody who do not have a morals that a child rape is such a disgusting and terrible crime, that it warrants everything we can inflict on perpetrator, including a mandatory sentence. Yes it is far worse then raping elderly or armed robbery, not to mention domestic violence or “crime against you”. But you obviously don’t really care, otherwise you wouldn’t even think of equating rape of a child with “crime against you”, because “it’s important for you not to be a victim of crime”. Disgusting.
If Fagan is “going to rip them apart” on the stand, it’s not because the defendant faces a mandatory sentence. It’s because Fagan is a schmuck.
Thank you for misquoting me and the numerous grammatical errors. They speak for themselves.
You don’t understand that it is political?
Hate crimes legislation was used to convince
people that they are getting extra protection because
of race, etc… so too with protecting children “extra”
with mandatory sentences. You said child rape was
worse than some of my example registries, but you
left out the attempted homocides(for that matter
how about real murderers). I wonder why you left that
one out. Then you would have to admit being murdered
probably is worse than being raped, regardless if it
is an adult or a child. So why wasn’t there a registry
for those who committed murder or attempted it?
Do you get it now? Or…
Maybe we could schedule a debate between a child rape
victim and an elderly rape victim to determine which
really is worse to get all the facts. Don’t you see
that everyone deserves equal protection. That
extra protection really is not American. That the
person who is a victim feels just as much a victim
whatever age they are at the time.
Stop reacting and think!
Is this making sense now?
Or…
Fall in line. Believe that
you are really standing up for children by being in
favor of these mandatory sentences and you are
a better person. Try to reach around and pat yourself
on the back. Good job. They have you thinking just
what they want and anyone who disagrees, you can just
label them(with hate crimes it was racist)as disgusting.
Thanks.
greg,
I think it’s perfectly possible to have a reasonable discussion about Megan’s law, mandatory sentencing, rape .. and even Fagen’s loathsome bullying and self-aggrandizing stance on the subject of mandatory sentencing. Furthermore, I think it’s safe to say that the comments here are (and ought to be) substantively about Fagen’s loathsome bullying and not about the merits or demerits concerning mandatory sentencing.
Having said that, absent in your comments is ANY sign of understanding of the human instinct and social requirement to especially protect children from harm and predation. By any chance to you identify yourself as a Feminist? Because you sure as Hell come across as one.
Daisy,
If by bullying and self-aggrandizing include attempting
to label people in order to create an ad hominem attack
and diminish a person’s views, then well done.
The issue should be on what he was speaking about!!!
You want to talk about how he talked??? Not important.
Again, how about others who are disadvantaged in regards
to defending themselves? Elderly, disable, infirmed, etc… You want to create special classes of citizens.
Isn’t it just as bad to rape a 13 year old as it is
a 12 year old? Does the 13 year old not have the same
feelings? Should a criminal feel that it is more
acceptable to rape a 13 year old? Just questions that
one would have to consider if they support your stance.
How about if an adult criminal of 5′ 120pounds performs
a criminal act on a minor who is 6′ 220 pounds.
Who was disadvantaged in a physical crime?
Should a criminal get time off because they chose to vicitmize someone who could really put up a good fight?
See, when you really think about protecting everyone
equally you don’t have to worry about situational
consequences that detract from the crime and victim.
I guess treating everyone equal just isn’t cool anymore.
There are probably a few hundred thousand state laws which put age limitations on behavior. An age has to be set for the sake of consistency. That is how laws are made.
And stop this BS that 5′2″ 120lbs peeps are attacking minors attacking peep that are 6′ 220 pounds is stupid.
You attack a ridiculous scenario by proposing a ridiculous scenario. KING O DOOFUSSES!!!
“The issue should be on what he was speaking about!!!
You want to talk about how he talked??? Not important.”
greg,
Regardless of how you would prefer to order reality about, the subject is exactly about HOW Fagen talked about the issue and what he revealed about himself. He demonstrated that he was an amoral, arrogant bully of the first degree. I’ll go further; Fagen was positively excited when he spoke about destroying a child’s life. His excitement displayed an urge towards destruction of innocence and goodness that was not unlike that of a child rapist. That’s what’s being discussed.
If you want to start your own blog in order to discuss mandatory sentencing issues or Megan’s law, go ahead. I do have a strong suggestion: Don’t lead your argument w/an example of a 220 lb. child being subjected to rape by a 120 lb. man. Just don’t.
Wow Misses Minky, I always knew I’d be king someday.
I don’t understand any of the rest of your comment.
Daisy, you can write about the manner in which someone
speaks about a topic.
What if he spoke really nicely about the Holocaust? Would that make it better?
How about addressing me by stating…
“absent in your comments is ANY sign of understanding of the human instinct and social requirement to especially protect children from harm and predation. By any chance to you identify yourself as a Feminist? Because you sure as Hell come across as one.”
Would you speak to me that way if you met me in person?
If so, you probably are not the type of person I would
like to meet, but probably you just misspoke.
I see no one likes my proposed scenario. I guess it
doesn’t fit what you had in mind, but that is the
difference between good and bad law; it works
fairly and the way it was intended.
If you really want to protect children and mandatory sentences are apparently the solution, then why not mandatory sentences for all crimes against children under 12? I know that would make them a protected class of citizens, but that is what you suggest.
Here I sit in my own little world. Here, where I think
laws should be applicable to everyone equally.
greg
I want this man shipped to Saudi Arabia and be beheaded for this outrage. This is the liberal scum that will be on the supreme court unless we get real and elect McCain.
Greg,
You’re nothing but a pathetic example of what happens when somebody is driven not by true compassion and morals, but by some abstract ideas.
I think by now everebody understands that you love “equality”. Unfortunately for you this idea derives its nobility from true compassion and morals and can be boiled down to not ultimately like or dislike people based on such irrelevant things as race, gender and so on. In your case the moral foundations are absent, so unsuprisingly you can’t comprehend that besides irrelevant things, there are relevant things which make noble people treat other people differently.
I understand that you also probably would strip veterans from benefits, “cos if we are to give benefits we should also give me benefits since i also sacrificed for my country when i took a time and went to vote, and what about all those folks who fought back criminals, it’s all nothin but a “rate a sacrice” game designed to make a protected class”…
Your dishonesty is mind-blogging. You trying to portray yourself as being sincerely in the dark about why somebody would treat children differently, as if you consider it really the same as to treat 35yo differently from 36yo, “cos everybody has the same feelings”. Why then you even mentioning “elderly”? Why you keep saying things like “Isn’t it just as bad to rape a 13 year old as it is a 12 year old?” Why 13yo, Greg, if you think it doesn’t matter 12yo or 40yo. Because you know that somehow it does matter, and to defend your disgusting stance you can’t come up with anything better than pointing the vague line separating an adult from a child.
I was so shocked by this perverts glee in describing what he would do to a baby if he questioned them I could have thrown up. Has anyone noticed all the associations he is affiliated with are youth organizations??? With all that hate he threw out to protect his child molesting clients makes one wonder maybe he needs to be checked out.
All too often the folks who want to be so close to children are really there for other reasons…pedophiles have a friend in fagen…time to kick his stupid #$@#&*$% out of office)! What a sleaze bag…how does he even look at himself…he will answer to a higher power than congress or the senate soon and very soon…! May God have mercy on your pathetic soul…!
Alex,
Your long comment lacks any substance other than to
call me absent or lacking, but aren’t you the one
who couldn’t even quote words correctly?
You really make me laugh with the lack of substance.
I know you rate crimes based on how you feel.
You are trapped in the mentality of how things make
you feel.
greg
Jun 24th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
[…] transcript, c/o Constitutionally Right. “Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that […]
Jun 24th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
[…] Charles at Constitutionally Right sums it up: Democratic Representative James Fagan was in the Massachusetts State House yesterday railing against Jessica’s Law, which would mandate 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12. As a defense attorney he took offense to the idea that someone convicted or raping a young child should have a mandatory sentence imposed on them, arguing it would force him to attack the little girl in order to defend his client: “Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, 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.” In essence, he argues that the only way to prevent him from “ruining” her life, is by offering leniency to the child rapist in the hopes he does not attack another young girl. […]
Jun 25th, 2008 at 2:44 am
[…] “First, kill all the lawyers.” Debate Over Jessica’s Law Reveals Lack of Morality […]
Jun 25th, 2008 at 7:42 am
[…] Debate Over Jessica’s Law Reveals Lack of Morality While it is true that it is a defense attorney’s obligation to defend his or her client to the best of his of her ability, that is true in all cases. Mr. Fagan would have you believe that he would be harsher in his cross examination of the victim if his client is facing 20 years then if he was only facing 5 years. His illogical, and downright offense argument is that by mandating a sentence of 20 years, the State legislature will be victimizing the child by forcing him and his peers to traumatize the little girl on the witness stand. In essence, he argues that the only way to prevent him from “ruining” her life, is by offering leniency to the child rapist in the hopes he does not attack another young girl. […]
Jun 25th, 2008 at 8:33 am
[…] lawyers are. Pedo-sympathizer while trying to fight Jessica’s law reveals what scum lawyers are. Debate Over Jessica’s Law Reveals Lack of Morality YouTube - Nancy Kerr & James Fagan-Brampton Live 2007 __________________ Check out this […]
Jun 25th, 2008 at 8:44 am
[…] of raping someone under the age of 12. It’s bad enough that Fagan opposes the bill, but his argument on the floor will truly disgust you. “Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, It’s so wrong because in these […]
Jun 25th, 2008 at 9:59 am
[…] Hot Air, via Ace, also via Constitutionally Right, via Jay, via Cas: This guy said some things that you wouldn’t expect to out of the Twilight […]
Aug 21st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
[…] From Hot Air also Constitutionally Right […]