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.
Mespo,
The 6th Amendment may grant criminals the right to legal counsel but it does not grant the right for attorneys to abuse young children.
You do not like the fact that I would rather see innocent adults convicted than allow baby rapers to live to destroy more children – fine.
One could also say that there’s another consequence to Fagan’s threats – they increase likelihood that parents won’t subject their children to such abuse. That would either:
1) Allow more baby rapers to continue their filthy evil
or hopefully
2) Convince more parents to keep the broken court system out of the equation by killing the baby rapers themselves.
I’m guessing you’re OK with the 1st option but are readying more vitriol to sling about the 2nd one.
janolan:
I regret that I could insult you only half as much as the one you visited upon yourself with your foolish words calling for the deaths of innocents. Michael Spindell, Gyges and others have called you on it, and your reply is just another ill-informed diatribe against lawyers doing the jobs specifically authorized in the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution. While you certainly have the right to utter stupidity under the protection of the First Amendment, you have no right to be free from criticism when you cross the line. And you have strode over it with gusto.
Here is all you have proven is:
1. You don’t like Mr. Fagan
2. You don’t like lawyers
3. You do like kids
4. Your knowledge is civics matches your knowledge of history
5. When criticized you pull out the poor, poor pitiful me defense.
Sorry but discourse doesn’t work that way. Either defend your position with a fact or two, or get out of the way of those who would learn from adult, rather than juvenile, conversation.
One last small thing. I had the pleasure of perusing your web site and encountering a page you humbly call your “Sayings” in which you graciously offer some of your own “quotes” along with some explanatory gobbledygook. One of the four caught my eye which read “all life is conflict; there is no peace this side of the grave.” Rather profound and familiar, and certainly above your level of discourse here. In thinking about it for a moment it finally came to me. All I will say is that you must be channeling George Santayana, since in 1922 the great historian said “only the dead have seen the end of war.” I am sure that great minds think alike–very much alike.
Jonolan,
Mespo called your conclusions foolish, and compared you to other people who had similar ideas to yours (although you could make the argument that some of those people truly thought that everyone they killed was guilty). To be fair you didn’t insult him directly either, but he was witty… you were just angry. And most importantly the joke wouldn’t have been nearly as funny if I involved him.
On a completely different note, I think the thing that makes the law great is that applies to everybody, even scum.
Interesting, Gyges –
I was verbally abused and insulted – well, he tried – by mespo727272 in the course of several of his comments, and yet you choose to only comment on my response.
I thank you for providing another wonderful example of the hypocrisy of the un-American left. It is woefully apparent that you all are unwilling or mentally unable to deal with an unapologetic counter-opinionated person.
Michael Spindell,
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.
i will point out though that the Law and the judicial system have little or no interaction with Justice. It’s there to protect people, and who needs more protection than our children.
Your idea is wonderful, but until private attorneys are outlawed it cannot work. Scum like Fagan will – for a fat price – do whatever is necessary to get their clients off the hook. Do you really believe that any of these bastards care whether their clients are guilty or not?
Jonolan,
I’ve actually worked putting child abusers in jail and protecting children from all sorts of abuse and was pretty successful at it. I was considered an expert witness in court cases dealing with child abuse and neglect. I hate people who abuse children.
However, I am expert enough to know and have experienced situations where innocent people were falsely accused of heinous crimes, sometimes by children, by teachers, by medical practitioners and by the criminal justice system.
“I make no apologies; better a hundred innocent men die than one baby raper be set free.”
Your statement above is indefensible and as was stated above would be appropriate coming from the mouth of an SS officer. I don’t know what abuse you’ve suffered in your life, or experienced from someone close to you, but your solution above is illogical and inappropriate. The idea of justice is that the guilty are punished and the innocent are exonerated, even though sometimes things go amiss.
The legislator’s statement was stupid and vile. His point though had some merit. I’ve watched too many of these special laws enacted because of a particularly grievous crime. Most of them prove to be worthless.
Jonolan,
I’ve often found that the best way to get people to see my point of view is to say that I’m willing to kill innocent people then get insulting and condescending when people disagree with me. I’m just curious if you also read about it in “How to Make Friends and Influence People.”
P.S. Have you tried that technique to get free meals from restaurants? It works surprisingly well.
No, the scum Fagan threatened to emotionally destroy and 6 year old child. I suppose we differ on whether that is better or worse than a physical threat against an adult.
But then I’m less sympathetic to baby rapers than you seem to be. I guess you can understand them and their attorneys better than I can.
I must say I do not think this man is a good defense atty. Ripping into a 6 year old is not going to make a jury sympathetic to his client. I think these actions would negate evidence of actual innocence. Everyone does deserve a defense. However, these statements seem without merit. They are scary to me.
jonolan,
I do not like child abusers either. Killing innocent people, or in my opinion, killing guilty ones, will not stop child rapists. If we do not leave behind the idea of violent action after violent action after violent action, we will get nowhere as a society.
Part of what happens in child abuse of every kind is that people often do see what is happening and no one takes the initative to stop things right away. Taking abuse seriously protects children in a way that killing innocent people never could. I also ask you to think how any child would feel if an innocent person was put to death, supposedly, for their sake. That is not a loving thing to do to a child.
Jill
jonolan:
It wasn’t a physical threat if you read the entire speech It was a threat of aggressive cross-examination. Why not read before you comment. At least you’ll keep the veneer of rationality for a while. BTW I’ll take mindless insult over your very intellectual and moral pronouncement that “better a hundred innocent men die than one baby raper be set free.”
It’s truly amazing how the Left will bend over backwards to defend people like Fagan when they actively threaten to harm children, but will cry foul and resort to mindless insult when presented with a similarly violent counter-argument.
jonolan:
I suppose you like the old stretching rack and burning stake system as well. I bet you also enjoy the witch dunking process which after the inevitable confession, led the “criminal” directly from the dunking pond to the noose or the fiery stake–if you didn’t drown in the process, of course. Very efficient. You really need to get back to the 13th Century where most everyone agreed with your ideas on justice. Those were the good old days!
Oh yes, let us PLEASE defend attorneys who make their living in perverting the law and abusing children so that the criminals they represent can get off with baby rape and murder.
dundar:
Statment 1: Agreed
Statement 2: Disagree. While no firearm is involved, Rule 6.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from avoiding appointment to a case unless inter alia, “the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.” Apparently, Mr. Fagan believes his duty to defend the Constitution outweighs whatever repugnance he feels about the case against his client. I can respect that principled stand, if not his extreme method of expressing it.
mespo:
Just because he is a lawyer, he does not have to make such reprehensible statements, in public and as the people’s representative.
Just because he is a lawyer, no one is holding a gun to his head and demanding that he take the case.
dundar:
I thought you were the type of guy that believed if the cause was just any action in furtherance, even illegal or immoral, was ok. Thanks for coming over from the dark side where you can now defend the Rule of Law. I eagerly await your opposition to retroactive telecom immunity.
This guy is so disgusting, for once I am speechless, except for saying I told you so.
janolan:
As usual, blanket assertions make for foolish conclusions. You might be interested to know that no defense attorney ever represented a child rapist except maybe after the trial on appeal. Before that the accused is as innocent as you — I guess — and deserves representation like everyone else, lest we have a police state where merely bringing charges amounts to guilt.
As for this line: “I make no apologies; better a hundred innocent men die than one baby raper be set free,” I must say you would have made a fine officer in the Waffen-SS which adopted the same policy as to prisoners.
JT:
Excess hyperbole about cross-exam, but he could have easily and effectively couched it as not wanting to unduly attack a child’s psyche on the stand. In his view, the law apparently calls for this dramatic type of cross, but in my experience when examining children, the best policy is a calm, methodical, and reasoned approach on a level to match their understanding. Children want to please adults and they typically will agree with most statements if presented approvingly. Sadly that is the problem the prosecution always has with child witnesses, and frankly, they are rarely completely believed by juries in the absence of some physical evidence. Poor choice of words,and even poorer advocacy by the passionate Mr. Fagan.
He defends baby rapers – therefor he is as vile as they are and would do all the vicious and evil things that he promised. He should be whipped to death alongside his subhuman clients.
I make no apologies; better a hundred innocent men die than one baby raper be set free.
wow…..