Passage of Jessica's Law and new developments

[evelyn24]

All the craziness on the "Where's Johnny" thread about pedophiles in high places just may be correct.
What kind of person would "rip apart" a child who has been raped? Hmmmm....

I think the guy is a freak. I hope the media look into this guy and into his past just to see what is lurking back there.

Oooh is that a thread here on Websleuths? I absolutely believe the biggest perverts are the ones in power.
No doubt in my mind.

I think this man is a disgrace, even if he was just giving an example of what would happen to a child on the stand if this law passes. I'm sure he could've thought of a more intelligent and less offensive way to debate the law.

 

[Taximom]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Oooh is that a thread here on Websleuths? I absolutely believe the biggest perverts are the ones in power.
No doubt in my mind.

I think this man is a disgrace, even if he was just giving an example of what would happen to a child on the stand if this law passes. I'm sure he could've thought of a more intelligent and less offensive way to debate the law.

 

[Marstan]

From the link:

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims. "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.”


Now THIS is a guy who needs some talking to. What a disgrace to the profession. A disgrace to his gender. A disgrace to the human race.

I done wrote me a letter to Rep. Faggggan and let him know how I feel about his statements. I just hope I don't get arrested for telling him to imagine how Mark Lunsford felt when his daughter went missing. I told him he seemed to "take pleasure" in torchering these little angels and he should change sides to prosecutor with those thoughts in mind. I suppose he supports NMBLA, too.:furious:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I done wrote me a letter to Rep. Faggggan and let him know how I feel about his statements. I just hope I don't get arrested for telling him to imagine how Mark Lunsford felt when his daughter went missing. I told him he seemed to "take pleasure" in torchering these little angels and he should change sides to prosecutor with those thoughts in mind. I suppose he supports NMBLA, too.:furious:

This guy obviously has no business calling himself a man. A man would never think in those terms.

 

[philamena]

:furious::furious::furious:OMG
I hope this guy suffers greatly while on this earth and burns in Hell for eternity. (Sorry, just reading his thoughtless, careless words makes me sick.)

If only he would flap his mouth when face to face with the children's advocates on WS.

"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

 

[Floh]

I believe he's finished. throw him away.

 

[Amraann]

I am going to take a differing POV on this one... From how I read it he is simply saying that a Defense Atty is obligated to prove his client innocent.
Also everyone is simply assuming that the (hypothetical) accused in this situation is already guilty.

I think anyone who reads my posts know I am not one to jump to the defense of some sexual pred. ... But I think this man's statements are being misconstrued.

I greatly admire Mark Lunsford but we need defense attorney's in order for a justice system to even remotely work.
Someone has to do the job.

I read Rep. Fagan's remarks more to mean he as a defense atty does not want to be in the position of doing that to a child but he views that Jessica's law will possibly put him in that position as he is legally obligated (if not him any other defense atty) to defend their client with vigor.

I am not debating the validity of that or how the law would or would not put a defense atty in that position but I do not see his statements the way the rest of you are reading it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I am going to take a differing POV on this one... From how I read it he is simply saying that a Defense Atty is obligated to prove his client innocent.
Also everyone is simply assuming that the (hypothetical) accused in this situation is already guilty.

I think anyone who reads my posts know I am not one to jump to the defense of some sexual pred. ... But I think this man's statements are being misconstrued.

I greatly admire Mark Lunsford but we need defense attorney's in order for a justice system to even remotely work.
Someone has to do the job.

I read Rep. Fagan's remarks more to mean he as a defense atty does not want to be in the position of doing that to a child but he views that Jessica's law will possibly put him in that position as he is legally obligated (if not him any other defense atty) to defend their client with vigor.

I am not debating the validity of that or how the law would or would not put a defense atty in that position but I do not see his statements the way the rest of you are reading it.

Believe me I understand the concept of providing a client with the best that the attorney has to offer. However, I think that not only can that be done without ruining the life of a child, but that he actually took the time to think up those words and phrase it like he did leads me to believe that he had more on his puny little warped mind that simply giving the best defense possible. No one needed a visual like he provided. All he needed to say was that it may be possible that children will become even more victimized during the trial than necessary should the prosecution be allowed to ask for mandatory minimums in these cases. How hard was that? LOL

 

[evelyn24]

I am going to take a differing POV on this one... From how I read it he is simply saying that a Defense Atty is obligated to prove his client innocent.
Also everyone is simply assuming that the (hypothetical) accused in this situation is already guilty.

I think anyone who reads my posts know I am not one to jump to the defense of some sexual pred. ... But I think this man's statements are being misconstrued.

I greatly admire Mark Lunsford but we need defense attorney's in order for a justice system to even remotely work.
Someone has to do the job.

I read Rep. Fagan's remarks more to mean he as a defense atty does not want to be in the position of doing that to a child but he views that Jessica's law will possibly put him in that position as he is legally obligated (if not him any other defense atty) to defend their client with vigor.

I am not debating the validity of that or how the law would or would not put a defense atty in that position but I do not see his statements the way the rest of you are reading it.

I think we all get that he was trying to give an example of what a defense attorney has to do in order to win his case (See my post above). However, there is a way of delivering your message, and a way not to deliver your message.
Also, so what this "man" Fagan is saying is all child rapists should be let off easy with sentencing, because tougher laws will make it harder on the victims when they have to testify?
I just don't get his entire rant, it doesn't make sense ...AT ALL.

 

[Jen_in_Indy]

I am going to take a differing POV on this one... From how I read it he is simply saying that a Defense Atty is obligated to prove his client innocent.
Also everyone is simply assuming that the (hypothetical) accused in this situation is already guilty.

I think anyone who reads my posts know I am not one to jump to the defense of some sexual pred. ... But I think this man's statements are being misconstrued.

I greatly admire Mark Lunsford but we need defense attorney's in order for a justice system to even remotely work.
Someone has to do the job.

I read Rep. Fagan's remarks more to mean he as a defense atty does not want to be in the position of doing that to a child but he views that Jessica's law will possibly put him in that position as he is legally obligated (if not him any other defense atty) to defend their client with vigor.

I am not debating the validity of that or how the law would or would not put a defense atty in that position but I do not see his statements the way the rest of you are reading it.

I understand what you are saying, Amra. I just think that being he is in such a position of power, he should learn to speak a tad more eloquently. There are plenty of other ways that he could have stated what he did without sounding so terrible.

 

[Rino]

I read Rep. Fagan's remarks more to mean he as a defense atty does not want to be in the position of doing that to a child but he views that Jessica's law will possibly put him in that position as he is legally obligated (if not him any other defense atty) to defend their client with vigor.

I am not debating the validity of that or how the law would or would not put a defense atty in that position but I do not see his statements the way the rest of you are reading it.

I don't feel anyone is legally obligatied to torment a child. If his client is guilty the sob should leave the child alone, if he beleives his client is innocent his tactics will do his client more harm than good.

 

[Paladin]

This guy obviously has no business calling himself a human. A human would never think in those terms.

No need to make this gender based. Please see above as I have altered your statement.

 

[fran]

Whether this guy would use those tactics personally, I don't know. But seeing how vehement he was in his delivery of this little tirade, I wouldn't put it past him.

Remember, this was spoken in opposition of passing Jessica's Law in the State of Massachusetts.

My question is, Why is he so against Jessica's Law?

I hope that everyone who resides in the State of Massachusetts who saw this little speech writes to everyone they can.

Unbelieveable,
fran

 

[Jeana (DP)]

No need to make this gender based. Please see above as I have altered your statement.

Thanks, but in the future, please don't alter my statements.

 

[Paladin]

he should learn to speak a tad more eloquently.

Understatement of the year right here, folks.

 

[evelyn24]

I don't feel anyone is legally obligatied to torment a child. If his client is guilty the sob should leave the child alone, if he beleives his client is innocent his tactics will do his client more harm than good.

Thank you!! A defense attorney is not suppose to behave that way. I've never heard of a defense attorney going after a little kid on the stand like that. I think most defense lawyers understand it would make them look bad to the jury. Most of the time they try to use a gentle but effective approach in doing cross in cases where a child accuses someone of molestation or rape.
This Fagan person has said a lot about himself and his own weird thoughts and mindset, more than he knows.

 

[Amraann]

Believe me I understand the concept of providing a client with the best that the attorney has to offer. However, I think that not only can that be done without ruining the life of a child, but that he actually took the time to think up those words and phrase it like he did leads me to believe that he had more on his puny little warped mind that simply giving the best defense possible. No one needed a visual like he provided. All he needed to say was that it may be possible that children will become even more victimized during the trial than necessary should the prosecution be allowed to ask for mandatory minimums in these cases. How hard was that? LOL

I agree his words were not tactful but I believe the point he was trying to make is not being taken the way he meant it.
I think had he not verbally illustrated the visual the way he did then no one would be talking about him right now. Maybe he needed to use those words to be heard?
IMO what he said about treatment of sexual assault victims on the stand is not to far off base.
It is what often happens.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I agree his words were not tactful but I believe the point he was trying to make is not being taken the way he meant it.
I think had he not verbally illustrated the visual the way he did then no one would be talking about him right now. Maybe he needed to use those words to be heard?
IMO what he said about treatment of sexual assault victims on the stand is not to far off base.
It is what often happens.

Its actually not what often happens in cases where very young children are involved. A judge would have his or her foot so far up this defense attorney's butt, he could shine it with his tongue.

 

[White Rain]

Its actually not what often happens in cases where very young children are involved. A judge would have his or her foot so far up this defense attorney's butt, he could shine it with his tongue.

And I would think MOST jurors would also resent an attorney for this. I know I would.

 

[southcitymom]

From the link:

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims. "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.”


Now THIS is a guy who needs some talking to. What a disgrace to the profession. A disgrace to his gender. A disgrace to the human race.

What does "zealously defend" mean to you when you are representing someone who has everything to lose?