Opponent of Jessica's Law tells what he wants to do to 8 year olds...

[EastFacingNorth]

I'm well aware that this is going to make me massively unpopular here, but...

For every poor child who was and will be brutalized by some sick f**k, there's some little brat who accuses a guy of rape because said brat doesn't get enough allowance from daddy/step-daddy or straight-A's from teacher.

In our culture, if not in our legal system, there is an assumption of guilt for men accused of such crimes.  Partly this is due to the sheer heinousness of those crimes, and to that degree such an assumption is understandable, even though it is still wrong.  But it is also in large part due to the feminist myth that no woman would lie about being raped (which has been proven false time and again) and the conferrence of that myth upon children.  We only need to look at the McMartin case to see where that leads us.

So while I, like any sane person, have a serious problem with the way this lawyer said what he did, I really don't take issue with the message behind the acid in his words - his job is to defend his clinets, and in order to do that he needs to be able to cross-examine those accusing his clients of horrible acts.

I also have to say though that I initially read those words in a different light than most here seem to have.  While the prevailing opinion seems to be that the lawyer in question is almost gloating that he will perform these actions, I read his words as being a pre-admission of guilt, as saying "Yes, I will do these horrible things, because that is my job, that is the price of justice."

Commence with the bitchslapping, I guess.

[jendf]

I'm well aware that this is going to make me massively unpopular here, but...

For every poor child who was and will be brutalized by some sick f**k, there's some little brat who accuses a guy of rape because said brat doesn't get enough allowance from daddy/step-daddy or straight-A's from teacher.

In our culture, if not in our legal system, there is an assumption of guilt for men accused of such crimes.  Partly this is due to the sheer heinousness of those crimes, and to that degree such an assumption is understandable, even though it is still wrong.  But it is also in large part due to the feminist myth that no woman would lie about being raped (which has been proven false time and again) and the conferrence of that myth upon children.  We only need to look at the McMartin case to see where that leads us.

So while I, like any sane person, have a serious problem with the way this lawyer said what he did, I really don't take issue with the message behind the acid in his words - his job is to defend his clinets, and in order to do that he needs to be able to cross-examine those accusing his clients of horrible acts.

I also have to say though that I initially read those words in a different light than most here seem to have.  While the prevailing opinion seems to be that the lawyer in question is almost gloating that he will perform these actions, I read his words as being a pre-admission of guilt, as saying "Yes, I will do these horrible things, because that is my job, that is the price of justice."

Commence with the bitchslapping, I guess.

He can't expect to use phrases like "ripping apart" a potential child rape victim and then expect everyone to say, "Oh, he was just saying he was going to do his job really, really well!"

His comments were completely distasteful, even for a lawyer and a politician. He did not demonstrate any tact at all and when discussing child molestation, even if there is a possibility of false accusations, he could still be more sensitive.

Anyone who says they don't see anything wrong with his choice of words frightens the hell out of me.

[mamacags]

He can't expect to use phrases like "ripping apart" a potential child rape victim and then expect everyone to say, "Oh, he was just saying he was going to do his job really, really well!"

His comments were completely distasteful, even for a lawyer and a politician. He did not demonstrate any tact at all and when discussing child molestation, even if there is a possibility of false accusations, he could still be more sensitive.

Anyone who says they don't see anything wrong with his choice of words frightens the hell out of me.

Agreed 100%.  This guy goes beyond doing his job to some sort of sick fantasy land where it is ok to brutalize a child.

[BlueStateSaint]

Someone needs to cap this motherf'er. 

Why does it not surprise me that it's in Massachusetts? WHAT THE ****! Are the South and the Midwest the ONLY places that are ****ing sane these days? Good God Almighty! 

I'm surprised he isn't a NYS legislator, myself.  But, I'm damned glad he isn't.  Noo Yawkers have some standards. 

[RGSG99]

He can't expect to use phrases like "ripping apart" a potential child rape victim and then expect everyone to say, "Oh, he was just saying he was going to do his job really, really well!"

His comments were completely distasteful, even for a lawyer and a politician. He did not demonstrate any tact at all and when discussing child molestation, even if there is a possibility of false accusations, he could still be more sensitive.

Anyone who says they don't see anything wrong with his choice of words frightens the hell out of me.

Agreed 100%.  This guy goes beyond doing his job to some sort of sick fantasy land where it is ok to brutalize a child.

It's almost as if Fagan is saying that he will rape the child again on the witness stand.  Also, as if the child won't have problems enough adjusting to life, he wants to traumatize the child so badly that he or she will never have a normal relationship with anyone?  That is just sick, IMO.

[RedTail]

I'm well aware that this is going to make me massively unpopular here, but...

For every poor child who was and will be brutalized by some sick f**k, there's some little brat who accuses a guy of rape because said brat doesn't get enough allowance from daddy/step-daddy or straight-A's from teacher.

In our culture, if not in our legal system, there is an assumption of guilt for men accused of such crimes.  Partly this is due to the sheer heinousness of those crimes, and to that degree such an assumption is understandable, even though it is still wrong.  But it is also in large part due to the feminist myth that no woman would lie about being raped (which has been proven false time and again) and the conferrence of that myth upon children.  We only need to look at the McMartin case to see where that leads us.

So while I, like any sane person, have a serious problem with the way this lawyer said what he did, I really don't take issue with the message behind the acid in his words - his job is to defend his clinets, and in order to do that he needs to be able to cross-examine those accusing his clients of horrible acts.

I also have to say though that I initially read those words in a different light than most here seem to have.  While the prevailing opinion seems to be that the lawyer in question is almost gloating that he will perform these actions, I read his words as being a pre-admission of guilt, as saying "Yes, I will do these horrible things, because that is my job, that is the price of justice."

Commence with the bitchslapping, I guess.

There are parts of your statement I agree with. There are some misbegotten assholes who WILL destroy an innocent persons life whether directly or manipulating a third party to do so.

But to me, there IS a difference between being a zealous defender and a sick ****.

This guy is a sick ****.

*Red*

[NHSparky]

Looks like the story is getting legs--O'Reilly did something on it Friday, and he's already trying to spin his way out of this one.

Sort of.

LINK

“It was not my intent to demean or offend any victims,” state Rep. James H. Fagan (D-Taunton) told the Herald. “I understand it was strong language, but it was meant to be a demonstration of what a bad place court can be.”

Fagan, a defense attorney, infuriated victims’ rights groups with his fiery speech on the House floor against Jessica’s Law, which would set a mandatory 20-year sentence for child rapists. Fagan said his point was to show lawmakers that if the law was passed, defense attorneys would take every case to trial, rather than cut plea bargains, which would lead to more victims being traumatized in court.

No, dicknose, your perversion of the justice system is what makes this kind of shit necessary.  Your liberal experiment at rehabilitation and "fixing" people who are just sick psychopathic ****s that need capped hasn't, isn't, and won't work.  Society abhors those who harm children, nearly as much as they abhor those who justify harming children.

[NHSparky]

Holy smokes--a Masshole who gets it right.  If only there were a few more of him there:

From the comments on the Boston.com story:

Why is anyone surprised? This is Massachusetts, we are battered spouses! We elect these jerks, then re-elect them, again, & again & again. We must enjoy this abuse or we'd terminate the arrangement we currently have with Beacon Hill; our votes, their out of touch elitism. We are the problem not this one of many morons we have chosen.

Hammer.  Nail.  Head.

[Willow]

“It was not my intent to demean or offend any victims,” state Rep. James H. Fagan (D-Taunton) told the Herald. “I understand it was strong language, but it was meant to be a demonstration of what a bad place court can be.”

Fagan, a defense attorney, infuriated victims’ rights groups with his fiery speech on the House floor against Jessica’s Law, which would set a mandatory 20-year sentence for child rapists. Fagan said his point was to show lawmakers that if the law was passed, defense attorneys would take every case to trial, rather than cut plea bargains, which would lead to more victims being traumatized in court.

That's what these asshole's want, they want the predators released, and they want the excuse to be "it would be too traumatic for the victim to have to appear in court" Fine! let's let him walk so there will be more victims "we don't want to traumatize in court"

[Airwolf]

If he somehow manages to do this in court , who is he going to be less safe from? Mom or Dad? If it was me I'd do my best to make what Saddam did pale in comparison to that ****er.

[DixieBelle]

"A demonstration of what a bad place court can be??" Hey asshat, don't you think these rape victims have already been to a "bad place"? Foribily by your hypothetical client no less?? What a scumbag.

[Red October]

“It was not my intent to demean or offend any victims,” state Rep. James H. Fagan (D-Taunton) told the Herald. “I understand it was strong language, but it was meant to be a demonstration of what a bad place court can be.”

Yes, I imagine court can be an awful shitty place for the guilty party.  But while a trial is quite an ordeal for the victim thanks to lawyers trying to rip them apart, court is a great place for the victim when the guilty verdict is read.  It's called "Justice", for those of you confused by this concept (Mr. Fagan, I'm looking in your general direction).  I haven't passed a Bar exam or endured a trial myself, but I'm guessing this "justice" thingy is the point.