A vow to attack rape victims

[Blue_Dolphin308]

A vow to attack rape victims
CNN's Brian Todd reports on a chilling argument against setting mandatory minimum sentences for child rape in Massachusetts.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/06/27/todd.child.rape.rant.cnn:furious::furious::furious:

 

[Spazkat9696]

I read this and it infuriated me. I guess he was trying to prove a point, but he came off as an a$$.

 

[Taximom]

My take was that he was trying to say what a "good" defense lawyer will have to do to defend a client charged w/a crime with those mandatory sentencing mandates. I think he did a lousy job and could have found a better way of getting his message across. He's still against the sentencing though which says a lot to me. There's another thread here w/the actual video if you are interested. Seach "Fagan".

 

[believe09]

Using the Supreme Courts logic then, perhaps more victims will be less traumatized by testifying and fewer will be killed if there are no mandatory sentences...

Maybe we should let the perps go with a hug and a kiss...sorry for being fresh.

 

[mrsjonnob]

I think victims would be more confortable testisying knowing their attacker will never get out of prison until they receive their final punishment (the DP).

I am so sickened by this ruling.

 

[OneLostGrl]

*GaSp* No, a vow to attack rape victims!?! NO WaY!..I don't believe it! What a joke.. like this is some new phenomenon. This is already going on!! Rape victims are already attacked. The majority of victims won't even report their rape because they know what LE will put them through.

What I got from the video in this thread was this man seemed kind of angry, like he did not want to defend a child molester.. like he felt bad questioning a child knowing the impact it will have on her later on in her life.

Who knows though...

 

[believe09]

*GaSp* No, a vow to attack rape victims!?! NO WaY!..I don't believe it! What a joke.. like this is some new phenomenon. This is already going on!! Rape victims are already attacked. The majority of victims won't even report their rape because they know what LE will put them through.

What I got from the video in this thread was this man seemed kind of angry, like he did not want to defend a child molester.. like he felt bad questioning a child knowing the impact it will have on her later on in her life.

Who knows though...

Oh, I agree with you OLG-and realistically a jury or judge watching an attorney shred a child victim is not going to give the perp a walk.

 

[Nugrandma1]

I am new here but have been a member of a number of forums over the years. I am ashamed of this idiot Fagan's rant. He was mostly showing what would happen if the law was passed. I am for Jessica's law. I think most people here in MA are also in favor of it. Most of the showing of this video I believe was taken out of context.

But he shouldn't have done it this way. No judge would allow a defense attorney to question a child like this and if they did even for a few moments this kind of action would turn the jury totally away from the defendant and any chance of a "fair trial".

 

[panglossian]

Welcome Nugrandma1!
I agree with your points.

 

[Amraann]

My take was that he was trying to say what a "good" defense lawyer will have to do to defend a client charged w/a crime with those mandatory sentencing mandates. I think he did a lousy job and could have found a better way of getting his message across. He's still against the sentencing though which says a lot to me. There's another thread here w/the actual video if you are interested. Seach "Fagan".

I posted something similar on the other thread about this topic