Shock Video: Massachusetts Legislator Under Attack for Declaring That He Would “Rip Apart” Child Rape Victims

Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat Massachusetts politician and defense attorney, is under attack for his opposition to the Jessica’s Law (imposing still penalties on child sex offenders. In the video below, Fagan declares that, if the law passed, he would “rip apart” child rape victims to the point to destroying them for life.

In his rant to the legislature, Fagan says: “”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.”

I doubt seriously that Fagan was actually promising to destroy children on the stand but saying, in an unbelievably moronic way, that the higher penalties would make trials more vicious and protracted. Yet, his method of conveying this point was not just an embarrassment for himself but all criminal defense attorneys.

Fagan represents the Third Bristol District, including the city of Taunton. He is a 1973 graduate of Suffolk Law School.

For the video, click here.

For the full story, click here.

28 thoughts on “Shock Video: Massachusetts Legislator Under Attack for Declaring That He Would “Rip Apart” Child Rape Victims”

  1. What does Fagan prove other than that defense attorneys are willing to commit child abuse to defend baby rapers, and that they expect – sadly rightfully by current interpretations of the law – to be protected from being prosecuted for doing so?

    I know my opinions are unpopular here and the certain people here will take yet another opportunity to attack me, but do any of you really understand what Fagan is threatening? Do any of you really fail to understand that these attorneys will do anything to make a buck?

    I do not deny that prosecutorial abuse exists, nor do I condone it – but at least their excesses are of zeal instead of greed.

  2. I had a similarly charged discussion at another message board that caters to a conservative crowd. My point was in line with Spindell, Gyges et al…this rep has a horrible way of proving a very valid point.

    One case, however, illustrates it best, and I can’t believe it hasn’t been cited yet in re prosecutorial abuse pertinent to alleged child abuse…


    ’nuff said.

  3. Jonolan,

    I actually think the general opinion here was that Fagan said something dumb and that his strategy in the court room would be flawed, which is something I think you would agree with. THEN the opinion was that punishing innocent people was wrong and that even people accused of doing horrible things are afforded the protection of the law. As an aside I’ll point out that practically it doesn’t matter which side of the argument is morally right, because we’re still a country of laws. If you are genuinely interested in fixing what you see as a problem, may I suggest that you run for office (which is another good way to get free food from restaurants) and then go about working from within the system to change the laws you disagree with.

    I have the impression that you’re not interested in intelligent discussion. Your posts seem to be a broken record that have little to no relation to the points that other people are trying to make. I’m not sure if this is because you intentionally ignore the salient points of the arguments or if you have a blind spot in regard to this particular issue. I am however pretty sure you’re going to go away in a day or so with your beliefs still intact and the impression that you really handed it to those pansy liberals. I hope you enjoy the feeling, but remember; shouting your beliefs at the top of your lungs doesn’t make you right, just loud.

  4. jonolan,

    Would you do me the kindness of really reading what I said. It is much different from what you are portraying.

    Thank you,


  5. So, in the opinion of all here except me it’s OK for attorneys to do whatever is useful in defending their clients? The deliberate abuse of children to further that is acceptable?

    So, in the opinion of all here except me it’s it’s wrong for a parent to remove e threat to his or her children? Believe me Fagan’s promised behavior is almost as much of a threat as the baby rapers he would gleefully defend.

    Does it not make sense that by allowing such behavior on the part of attorneys vigilantism is actually encouraged. Would any of you subject your children to such abuse at the hands of Fagan and his ilk? If you wouldn’t, would you just let the felon walk free?

    And yes, I’m angry at the situation. It’s reprehensible that defense attorneys are allowed to behave the way they do.

  6. “My statement regarding guilty v. innocent was an admittedly trollish mechanism to prove the point that the leftists will defend their own vile hyperbole while decrying similar statements by their opposition. It was sadly quite successful.”

    “Convince more parents to keep the broken court system out of the equation by killing the baby rapers themselves.”

    One might accept these disingenuous statements were it not for the fact that all of your posts are literally dripping with vitriol. You are obviously a very angry person. One can grant you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps, because you were in some way abused as a child, or felt cheated by a lawyer. While that might serve as a means to understand your anger, it doesn’t justify the excess you indulge in to assuage it.

    If, however, none of your opinions have actual experience as their base, then you are merely indulging your hyperbolic dislike of what you characterize as “left wingers.” This is sad because it belongs in the “nyahh!,nyahh!” school of argument. That is where your term “baby rapers” becomes disingenuous because one would expect that you would launch your vitriol on any comment where you could find a reason to impugn liberals. Your indignation regarding child abuse would be suspiciously lacking in real empathy for the abused and merely an instrument of your anger.

    One case I supervised many years ago will illustrate the inanity of your second statement. A 17 year old unwed mother was reported to Child Welfare because her 3 month old wasn’t gaining weight. They wanted the baby removed from her mother because they claimed she was not feeding it correctly. The hospital was insistent and yet my worker was adamant that the mother was doing everything possible for the child. I agreed for the child to be admitted to the hospital for 2 weeks to see if they could make the child gain weight. After 2 weeks I called the hospital to discover that the child had not gained an ounce at that point. The the Doctors had discovered an enzyme deficiency that affected the weight gain. Three days later the child was returned to its mother. six months later the hospital reported the child as being healthy.

    That wasn’t “baby rape” but the point is what if some angry parent, wrongly believing someone had abused their child killed them, only to discover that the “rape” never happened. Do you think that would be a good outcome. I have seen Physicians called in suspected sexual abuse cases based on bruised sexual areas, only to discover that they had mistaken natural injury for sexual abuse. By the way understand this,
    Jonolan, I am a card carrying liberal, left-winger, but when it came to dealing with punishing child abuse I was somewhere to the right of Attila The Hun. The difference is I was interested in getting it right, rather than getting my rocks off.

  7. Jill:

    Amen. Thank you for putting a real face on this problem. Vengeance makes for good movie plots and bad policy. No one wins. Maybe Janolan will respond better to narratives than reason. He has no concept of the historic fact that preserving rights for those who deserve them the least, insures the rights of those who are most deserving. It’s unbridled hate that is blinding him, but he is blind nonetheless. There’s no point in arguing with him until he gets past that emotional response and starts to think about the ramifications of his words.

  8. jonolan,

    I want to tell you about a case I know personally. There was a man whose son was killed, in part, because of the actions of an adult male. The father was obviously devastated by his son’s death. The male expressed no remorse whatsoever for the death.

    However, instead of comforting his remaining children and his wife, the father broke into the house of the other man, pointed his gun at him and ordered him at gun point into the back yard. The man ran into his neibhor’s house whereupon the father chased him with his gun to a neigbor’s house. The man escaped. The neighbor was left with his door having been broken down and facing a man with a gun pointed at him.

    Other than the father not following through with a murder, this father was acting just as you advised above–taking the law into his own hands. What was the result of this action?

    The father has lost his job due to being convicted of a felony. His entire family was dependent on his income and health insurance. His remaining children and his wife are bereft, not only of their brother/son’s company, they now have no father/husband to help them through the difficult time to grieve this horrible death. Their grief has increased ten fold.

    Vigilante justice is not an answer. That family needed a father. They needed him emotionally and they needed him financially. They have worse than neither now.

    If you care about children, you have to care for them. Their needs have to come before anyone else’s need for revenge. The court system has failed many children, but you don’t have to. Be there for a child that was harmed. Support them: emotionally, financially, do what you can do. There are times when the court system works, work to make it better.


Comments are closed.